July 24th Global Sea Ice Area Highest Since 1996 – 8th Highest On Record

3 Responses to July 24th Global Sea Ice Area Highest Since 1996 – 8th Highest On Record

1. Wally Lind says:

   July 26, 2014 at 11:10 pm

   As a non-scientist, I have difficulty understanding the competing claims in the “scientific community”. I did some science in college, but just as a technician, and as a student. My first rule is that I pretty much discount those who call the competing view and it’s adherents names. Those are not serious people. The second rule is not trusting the term “settled science”. Its the kind of term that would be used by church elders in the 15th Century, not by a modern scientist. Thirdly, I take a second and a third look at the claims of “scientists” who are in bed with politicians, like the president or Al Gore. Lastly, science doesn’t include moral judgements with its findings. So producing carbons with your industrial process might harm something, but that’s not a moral failing, its just a fact, and no scientist would give it a moral value.

   Reply
   • Dmh says:

     July 26, 2014 at 11:29 pm

     After looking at the above graph, take a look at the following one
     http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
     The latest little spike corresponds to a normal relatively weak positive ENSO that is probably reverting now
     http://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/sur/images/nino34_short.gif
     as it happened in 2012, when the world temps also had a little spike.
     Note that the spikes of local high temps are decreasing in magnitude similarly to the decrease of ENSO positive anomalies,
     http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-Nino3-4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
     The world temperatures and ENSO follow similar patterns, because the latter is only a “symptom”, a reflex of the former.
     Both world temps and ENSO clearly show a trend to lower anomalies- i.e. a cooling trend for world’s temperatures- and, if the climate alarmists were really interested in the scientific understanding of the climate they should have no problem in admitting that, but they don’t.
     Their claims are, at the very least, scientifically biased and in conflict with the observed data.

     Reply
     • Gail Combs says:

       July 30, 2014 at 3:52 am

       Climastrologists are not tasked with understanding the climate. That was never ever the goal. That is why all other variables besides CO2 and man produced greenhouse gases are pretty much ignored.

       The USA ratified on 21/03/94 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This means the USA in 1994 ACKNOWLEDGED CAGW as a problem at a high level and then went to work trying to convince the citizens that “They” wanted Congress to “DO SOMETHING” (That is how Global Governance and “Harmonization” work.)

       Here’s the official definition of “Climate Change”:

       “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

       That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, end even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

       So voters have been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that’s the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which people like us assume to apply to, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the change of climate is negligible.

       Do you see now how the hoax is perpetrated?

       The IPCC mandate is similar:

       The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
       http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

       So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.

       The IPCC’s ROLE

       The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
       http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

       So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change.

       Worse it is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.

       The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

       We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

       This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

       Reply