Sea ice grows. What do alarmists say now?

[nero_bolt]

If vanishing sea ice was evidence of global warming, what does increasing ice mean? Can’t wait to hear the scaremongers explain this away:

ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said .... “This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, which was set in April 2008,...”

Increased ice cover in Antarctic continues to be at odds with falling Arctic ice levels, where the summer melt has again pushed levels well below the average extent for 1981-2010… [But] the April Arctic minimum was 270,000sq km higher than the record April low, which occurred in 2007.

Together, that leaves us with above-average sea ice:

Sea Ice Page

Global Sea Ice Reference Page: Arctic and Antarctic current graphs and imagery

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

[monman12]

All the graphs and pseudo science we are subjected to does not prove anything if the base line modelling  outright fraudulently cooked the figures.

The modelling is wrong ergo the predictions are wrong.

That exactly is what the Scientific Method eliminates SF, via peer review and accepted alternative scenarios. Your comments  would appear to be based upon personal opinions not science or research, however,  instead of suggesting  fraudently cooked figures  you provide some data for review that confims what you write. However your comments do reflect upon the  "selectivity" and "modelling" of deniers when it comes to arguing their position here.

"The modelling is wrong ergo the predictions are wrong."

Yes, modelling can prove incorrect,  but recorded datasets/information generally not so,  unless the methodology is lacking in rigorous scientific protocols and examination.

Roy Spencer and John Christy at the University of Alabama (UAH) were effectively the originators of the satellite temperature records.  For some 10 years from 1979  their (incorrect figures)  were used, and lauded by deniers such as SRBA, to assert that global temperatures were not rising as other scientists had stated. They were wrong because their methodology overlooked satellite orbital decay and other corrections.

A UAH  comment

"An inescapable conclusion from this is that the methodological choices that we and others have made have lead to a substantial and significant impact upon the resulting estimates. This reinforces the importance of creating multiple independent estimates from the raw data which is known both to contain nonclimatic influences and lack met[eo]rological traceability if we are to avoid the possibility of reaching false conclusions

Spencer and Christy's modelling was wrong "ergo their predictions were wrong' then,  and according to the overwhelming majority of scientists their latest ones, in like manner, still wrong.

.

Someone earlier wisely  wrote:  "Seriously nero - it is best to say nothing at all sometimes if you don't know what you are talking about"

Nero is not alone!.

nɥºɾ

PS

SRBA,  I am still awaiting your answer as to Spencer's  "Causes of Weather"

[izabsmiling]

---

@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:

I find Hysterical Alarmists extremely funny............thank you for that!.........

---

I expect all multi national companies to abide by our Trades practices act.

Complaints ignored on 35 pages of an incorrect and misleading thread title.....show corporate greed and disrespect for Australians,our environment and our Laws.

I did what medical professionals in Australia are encouraged to do..that is speak up when Climate change misinformation and lies are peddled in public places.....it was ignored.

If Multi nationals want our money..they need to respect us not seek to misinform and harm to suit their own bank accounts.

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Monman - my point is.    CO2  is not an issue but a politically driven hoax with a nasty agenda behind it.   It is being used to create a green religion, to make humans hate humanity and bring in the Agenda.  

Do you believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has not  increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm to 395 ppm as of 2013? Or do you believe that it has increased but is not a problem?

And  I'm sure you have the figures at your finger tips - and the evidence to back them up -  to tell us exactly what the current level is, what has caused the rise - if there has been one -  and at what level, if any, this rise could become a problem..

---

Still waiting for an answer.

[izabsmiling]

Act on climate change for the sake of the future — Doctors’ orders

 Carmela Ferraro 7 April 2014

At their annual conference in March, Doctors for the Environment Australia said the debate about whether climate change is real is over — it is now time to act. Carmela Ferraro reports.

IN LIGHT of the IPCC’s report card on the environment and the enormous challenges facing people and planet, it’s reassuring to know that a 2014 CSIRO survey shows more than 80 per cent of Australians think climate change is real.

Curiously, though, on a list of 16 concerns, climate change came 14th — lower than health at number one, the economy, electricity prices and drug problems.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the lead author of the CSIRO survey Dr Zoe Leviston

‘… said the low ranking may reflect people turning off the issue because it had become so politicised, artificially pulling the ranking down.’

http://www.independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/act-on-climate-change-for-the-sake-of-the-futu...

[the_great_she_elephant]

 CO2  is not an issue but a politically driven hoax with a nasty agenda behind it

Has it ever occurred to you that Climate change denial might be a politically driven hoax with a nasty agenda behind it? 

check out the background and affiliations of these deniers:

http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

[izabsmiling]

from the USA...

 does it sound similar to plans/changes our Government is in the process of trying to make?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWt2XY5HCEs

We are all Connected .

What is ALEC?

ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through the secretive meetings of the American Legislative Exchange Council, corporate lobbyists and state legislators vote as equals on ‘model bills’ to change our rights that often benefit the corporations’ bottom line at public expense. ALEC is a pay-to-play operation where corporations buy a seat and a vote on ‘task forces’ to advance their legislative wish lists and can get a tax break for donations, effectively passing these lobbying costs on to taxpayers.

Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations.

Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills.

ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. 

How do corporations benefit?

Although ALEC claims to take an ideological stance (of supposedly "Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty"), many of the model bills benefit the corporations whose agents write them, shape them, and/or vote to approve them. These are just a few such measures:

• Altria/Philip Morris USA benefits from ALEC’s newest tobacco legislation -- an extremely narrow tax break for moist tobacco that would make fruit flavored tobacco products cheaper and more attractive to youngsters.
• Health insurance companies such as Humana and Golden Rule Insurance (United Healthcare), benefit directly from ALEC model bills, such as the Health Savings Account bill that just passed in Wisconsin.
• Tobacco firms such as Reynolds and pharmaceutical firms such as Bayer benefit directly from ALEC tort reform measures that make it harder for Americans to sue when injured by dangerous products.
• Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) benefits directly from the anti-immigrant legislation introduced in Arizona and other states that requires expanded incarceration and housing of immigrants, along with other bills from ALEC’s crime task force. (While CCA has stated that it left ALEC in late 2010 after years of membership on the Criminal Justice Task Force and even co-chairing it, its prison privatization bills remain ALEC "models.")
• Connections Academy, a large online education corporation and co-chair of the Education Task Force, benefits from ALEC measures to privatize public education and promote private on-line schools.

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F#What_is_ALEC.3F

[monman12]

"And  I'm sure you have the figures at your finger tips - and the evidence to back them up -  to tell us exactly what the current level is, what has caused the rise - if there has been one -  and at what level, if any, this rise could become a problem.."

I assumed the questions were rhetorical TGSE,  because of their simplicity,  and the fact that they have been answered here over the years and my position based upon my small grasp of various science disciplines would be well known. However within the Scientific Method:

Warming of the global climate system over the past century is beyond doubt, as seen in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, sea level rise and melting of snow and ice. It is very likely that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is due to human activities that have increased greenhouse gas levels.

Further global warming and regional climate change is expected due to projected increases in greenhouse gases.

the scientific consensus is that the present-day biosphere can be damaged if CO
2 concentrations surpass 550 parts per million

Elimination of about 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but it would not start decreasing until even further reductions are made.and then it would only do so slowly.

The current level of 400pm is a problem (but relative),  whilst the steady rise, and the accelerating of that trend, in CO2  levels  due to anthropogenic GHG emissions,  is most certainly a problem .

Now for the nutty stuff:
"CO2  is not an issue but a politically driven hoax with a nasty agenda behind it.   It is being used to create a green religion, to make humans hate humanity and bring in the Agenda."

CO2 is not in itself an issue,  it is its properties as a GHG that are the problem.

"a politically driven hoax",  you have to have a little scientific  knowledge  to achieve that, even if many of your audience also lack any, and politicians mostly  don't either.

"bring in the Agenda."  I prefer science TGSE  (pure and applied)  What is the "Agenda"? Should I ask P007 or do I believe that the 1992 UN resolution ended up in the bin, and  "As with most UN resolutions, the proposals were largely ignored—except in the world of online conspiracy theories"

Facts and figures are good (not nut links) meanwhile ponder why the majority of scientists accept global warming and its cause,  and then ask why would our BOM and CSIRO be involved in a nut Agenda?

nɥºɾ

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

Don't like Uah?.....Take your pick  Mm..............they all show no global warming........lol. 

And to think NASA fund those satellites......:womanvery-happy:

I don't think Dr Spencer would disagree with the statement from the Metoffice...... however, you do believe the Metoffice to be

wrong..lol.

.......poor alarmist........

[nero_bolt]

Hey siggie this says it all and will bringa  smile to your face

Warmist defects

James Delingpole says one the world’s most eminent warmist scientists has become a sceptic:

Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.

But this week, he [agreed] to join the advisory council of Britain’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.

Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift - “I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are” he recently told Germany’s Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an “alarmist” - his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment…

more here http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/warmist_defects...

🙂

[the_great_she_elephant]

I assumed the questions were rhetorical TGSE,  because of their simplicity,  and the fact that they have been answered here over the years and my position based upon my small grasp of various science disciplines would be well known.

Sorry John, my post was a bit confusing. I was actually replying to something  Ashjoma said to you in #46 . She stated that CO2 in the atmosphere was not a problem and I wanted to know what scientific data she was using to justify that statement. I am still waiting  for a reply, but have stopped holding my breath.