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]

.Tomorrows Weather

Moist southeasterly winds will feed a trough, causing showers and storms in eastern QLD and northeastern NSW.

A weak front will bring showers to TAS.

Weak troughs in the west will bring warmer winds to WA but only the odd shower.

A high will keep the rest of the country dry.

Indeed Mm...... the sun does warm the Earth...this equals....warm temperatures....lol.

"High and low pressure systems cause the day-to-day changes in our weather."....Metoffice......or are they wrong.....giggle.

[izabsmiling]

CSIRO casts doubt on key aspect of Government's Direct Action climate change plan

By political reporter Simon Cullen

ABC Updated Fri 7 Mar 2014, 9:14am AEDT

The CSIRO has cast doubt on a key aspect of the Federal Government's climate change plan, saying storing carbon in soil is only likely to result in a "low level" cut to greenhouse gas emissions.

The Government's multi-billion dollar Direct Action policy aims to cut carbon pollution by 5 per cent by the year 2020, with soil carbons forming a major part of its strategy.

"The single largest opportunity for CO2 emissions reduction in Australia is through bio-sequestration in general and, in particular, the replenishment of our soil carbons," the policy document states.

"It is also the lowest cost CO2 emissions reduction available in Australia on a large scale."

In a submission to a Senate inquiry into the Direct Action policy, the CSIRO says there are many options for achieving the 5 per cent target, but warns that soil carbons may not deliver much.

"Soil carbon in agricultural zones is likely to provide low levels of greenhouse gas abatement," it states.

"Saturation of carbon sinks (the maturation of forests and the restoration of soil carbon levels) means that per annum abatement from the land sector will decline in the decades after project establishment."

The CSIRO also says there needs to be further work done on modelling the carbon levels in soil.

In response to questions about the CSIRO's comments, a spokesman for Environment Minister Greg Hunt told the ABC:

"We remain extremely confident we'll achieve our targets and achieve them easily."

^^ what a negligent Government we have!

[the_great_she_elephant]

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..

[monman12]

Oh goody some graphs.

Extrapolating a selected 10 year trend from 2013 to 2100 is hardly scientific. You do have to love a good El Niño event thogh

As you have posted RSS data and you "Love" Spencer and the UAH try these:

I see why you chose RSS though.

nɥºɾ

[monman12]

"High and low pressure systems cause the day-to-day changes in our weather.".Met office (United Kingdom National Weather service) Meaning SRBA that the resultant winds from high/low pressure gradients move air masses with differing atmospheric conditions.
I notice you did not include the whole statement SRBA which included:
"Areas of high and low pressure are caused by ascending and descending air. As air warms, it ascends leading to low pressure at the surface. As air cools, it descends leading to high pressure at the surface. Also later: "Air masses are classified into groups depending on their basic temperature and humidity characteristics."   Not air pressure

I have also stated:
"Air pressure systems and their resulting  geostrophic  winds are just a transport mechanism for the atmospheric conditions, which as a result of thermal energy  stored from solar radiation  produce our weather. The pressure gradient (air pressure system) certainly produces one aspect of our weather, surface wind, but this gradient is  also  the result of temperature differences."

Roy Spencer: What Causes Weather?
"Let’s start with the basics. Weather is caused by energy imbalances, primarily (1) between the solar heated surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above it, and (2) between different geographic regions (e.g. the tropics vs. high latitudes; the warm oceans versus cold continents in winter).
These energy imbalances have associated temperature differences, which in turn cause atmospheric circulation systems which form clouds, precipitation, and high and low pressure systems."

SRBA: "Earths atmospheric air pressure systems, are what determine and create weather across the globe......"

Why does your champion Spencer hold such "strange" views?

I thought I would include Spencer's  latest UAH temperature data/graph, why does he not start 17 years 8 months ago, or at your favourite:  1998,  because  his graph shows an obvious  positive temperature trend?.

I also noticed that Spencer does not agree with your past comment that Mt Pinatubo caused a 1 degree drop in temperature.

nɥºɾ

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

"High and low pressure systems cause the day-to-day changes in our weather."....Metoffice......

That Mm is a direct quote from the Metoffice. It is the first sentence from their website. It is even in bold writing....lol.

The fact you continue to disagree is laughable........if you believe the metoffice is wrong or lying......poor you!

Personally.......I prefer to watch a hamster eat mini pizza than read your recycled backpedaling............you have been proved wrong.

[freakiness]

---

@siggie-reported-by-alarmists wrote:

http://m.youtube.com/results?q=al%20gore%20polar%20ice%20caps%20gone%20in%205%20years&sm=1

Listen for youreslf in the above  link...in 2009 he said 5-7 years......

---

He doesn't claim that the ice will be gone in 7 years.

He is talking about scientists warnings, not making definitive statements.

[freakiness]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@ashjoma wrote:
L27 - wake up

---

 wide awake and well ahead of you. try a flat earth site maybe, somewhere where they accept odd theories with no scientific basis.

---

or this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bonjn5_ieI

[i-need-a-martini]

If vanishing sea ice was evidence of global warming, what does increasing ice mean?

What I find really alarming is that someone can make a statement like the one above in an attempt to prove that climate change is bunkum yet clearly shows how little they know on the subject.

Seriously nero - it is best to say nothing at all sometimes if you don't know what you are talking about.

[silverfaun]

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.