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/

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@nero_wulf wrote:

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...

🙂

---

Not surprising though.....is it....

[silverfaun]

All warm mongers should be rounded up and sent to the north pole to live. 

They eschew Christianity but have substituted it with another religion and are persecuting anybody who doesn't agree with them.

The age of enlightenment has died under this mob, has been subjugated by the chattering classes,  the carpetbaggers, rent seekers and ratbaggers.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001‘

The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for

Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review

process is “an illusion.”

McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The

report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has

been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us

to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit

support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one

other endorsed only a specific section.

Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating:

Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50

years, according to this recent analysis.

[izabsmiling]

"There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate"

Bengtsson 2014

DOOR MARCEL CROK May 2 2014

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher:

 “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished

without a trace. 

As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific

fact.”

[freakiness]

The only surprise is that Bolt thinks this story is new news.

Lennart Bengtsson is a scientist, not a warmist, denialist or alarmist, and has always been against the emotional debate with unqualified people arguing over things they know little or nothing about.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

"There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate"

Bengtsson 2014

DOOR MARCEL CROK May 2 2014

---

The quote actually reads.....

"Is there according to you a “climate consensus” in the community of climate scientists and if so what is it?

I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three!

 Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models.

Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation."

He doesn't sound alarmed at all.....lol.

[izabsmiling]

What drives your skeptism? 

Do you want fossil fuels to hold their value?

why such dedicated objection?

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

Lennart Bengtsson: “The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong”

"Why did you join the GWPF Academic Council?

I know some of the scientists in GWPF and they have made fine contributions to science. I also respect individuals that speak their mind as they consider scientific truth (to that extent we can determine it) more important than to be politically correct. I believe it is important to express different views in an area that is potentially so important and complex and still insufficiently known as climate change.My interest in climate science is strictly scientific and I very much regret the politicisation that has taken place in climate research. I believe most serious scientists are sceptics and are frustrated that we are not able to properly validate climate change simulations.

I have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper. I 

also believe that most scientists are potentially worried because of the long residence time of many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, our worries must be put into a context as there are endless matters to worry about, practically all of them impossible to predict.

Just move yourself backward in time exactly 100 years and try to foresee the evolution in the world for the following 100 years.Is this your way of telling the world that you have become a “climate sceptic”? (many people might interpret it that way) If not, how would you position yourself in the global warming debate?

I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist.

I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my opinion or attitude to science. I have always been driven by curiosity but will of course always try to see that science is useful for society. This is the reason that I have devoted so much of my carrier to improve weather prediction.