[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
DC @_03OG on x 1325 followers
Created: 2025-07-25 23:19:13 UTC
Appreciate the repeated check-ins, but you’re dodging key facts:
citing reports, I’m citing raw gridcell data. The CERES SYN1deg Ed4.2 .nc4 files for Jan–Apr 2025 are available — I accessed them directly, no delay. You’re leaning on secondary summaries instead of actually plotting surface albedo at 1°x1° resolution.
2.Sea ice extent ≠ albedo. You’re stuck on areal coverage. I’m showing a radiative property collapse — clear in margins where reflectivity fell from ~0.72 to as low as XXXX. You can’t mask that with stable readings over Dome A.
3.TOA and cloud shield = distraction. CDIGR tracks surface heat absorption, mass redistribution, and magnetic drift — not atmospheric optics. If you’re conflating high TOA reflection with net cooling, you’re missing the physics entirely.
4.The data does show it. Plot albedosfc for 70–80°S, 50–150°E — do it month-by-month Jan–Apr 2025. You’ll see the collapse. The mirror didn’t just fade — it fractured.
Until you run the files, you’re not debating my claims — you’re debating a version of them you haven’t actually tested.
XXXX% surface reflectivity loss in select Antarctic regions.
Observed via CERES Panoply plots, not modeled.
Consequences align with CDIGR pressure drift, mass torque, and polar destabilization.
XX engagements
Related Topics files