Posted on

Call for Grand Inquisitor to investigate Climate Change Skeptics

The Grand Inquisitor

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

MICHAEL BASTASCH

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

Read more: https://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m7VNKAZF

Quick Note to the Pope : There is no apparent linkage, between CO2 and climate change

By Joe Bastardi · Sep. 18, 2015

Just two charts I would ask the pope to look at.

1.) Human progress: The amount of people, life expectancy and global personal GDP. These “hockey sticks” show that, since the advent of fossil fuels, the human condition has improved immensely.

2.) The factual record of CO2 and temperature in the geological history of the earth.

There is no apparent linkage, so why is CO2 suddenly the climate control knob when there were years with higher CO2 and lower temperatures?

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/37721

Posted on

Climate change “expert” sentenced to 32 months for fraud, says lying was a ‘rush’

abominable-snowman-520169

by MICHAEL ISIKOFF

The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison Wednesday for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.

John C. Beale’s crimes were “inexplicable” and “unbelievably egregious,” said Judge Ellen Huvelle in imposing the sentence in a Washington. D.C. federal court. Beale has also agreed to pay $1.3 million in restitution and forfeiture to the government.

Beale said he was ashamed of his lies about working for the CIA, a ruse that, according to court records, began in 2000 and continued until early this year.

“Why did I do this? Greed – simple greed – and I’m ashamed of that greed,” Beale told the court. He also said it was possible that he got a “rush” and a “sense of excitement” by telling people he was worked for the CIA. “It was something like an addiction,” he said.

Beale pled guilty in September to bilking the government out of nearly $1 million in salary and other benefits over a decade. He perpetrated his fraud largely by failing to show up at the EPA for months at a time, including one 18-month stretch starting in June 2011 when he did “absolutely no work,” as his lawyer acknowledged in a sentencing memo filed last week.

When Huvelle asked Beale what he was doing when he claimed he was working for the CIA, he said, “I spent time exercising. I spent a lot of time working on my house.”

He also said he used the time “trying to find ways to fine tune the capitalist system” to discourage companies from damaging the environment. “I spent a lot of time reading on that,” said Beale.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/climate-change-expert-sentenced-32-months-fraud-says-lying-was-f2D11768995

Posted on

Electric rates will soar now that Obama’s EPA has crushed coal-fired power plants

abominable-snowman-520169

By Phil Kerpen

Published March 29, 2012
FoxNews.com

With the country focused on this week’s high drama at the Supreme Court, President Obama’s EPA quietly released long-delayed regulations to apply global warming rules never authorized by Congress to new coal-fired power plants.

That Obama’s EPA would release a rule to destroy coal-fired electricity while the president gives stump speeches about an “all of the above” energy policy is an insult to the American people.

This rule will effectively block any new coal-fired power plants from being built in America, and a second round of related rules – expected after the election, of course – will shut down existing coal-fired power plants.

The result will be steeply higher electricity prices, lost jobs, and lower standards of living. Remarkably, this is all done in the name of global warming, but even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits it will have no discernible impact on global temperatures. Obama’s EPA is crippling the U.S. economy not to accomplish anything, but just to enjoy a nice, warm, green feeling of self-satisfaction.

Four years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama explained his anti-coal energy policy in an editorial board meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama said: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.” He went on to explain: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Indeed Obama attempted to make good on his campaign promise to bankrupt the coal industry and make electricity prices skyrocket the legitimate way – by proposing cap-and-trade legislation in Congress. It was jammed through the House but crashed and burned in the Senate, where many Democrats understood such an energy rationing plan to be political suicide.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/29/electric-rates-will-soar-now-that-obamas-epa-has-crushed-coal-fired-power.html

Posted on

Pope Francis pushes faith based “climate change”

Pope Francis waves as he delivers a "Urbi et Orbi" message from the balcony overlooking St

How climate-change doubters lost a papal fight

By Anthony Faiola and Chris Mooney June 20 at 9:26 PM

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis was about to take a major step backing the science behind ­human-driven global warming, and Philippe de Larminat was determined to change his mind.

A French doubter who authored a book arguing that solar activity — not greenhouse gases — was driving global warming, de Larminat sought a spot at a climate summit in April sponsored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Nobel laureates would be there. So would U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs and others calling for dramatic steps to curb carbon emissions.

After securing a high-level meeting at the Vatican, he was told that, space permitting, he could join. He bought a plane ticket from Paris to Rome. But five days before the April 28 summit, de Larminat said, he received an e-mail saying there was no space left. It came after other scientists — as well as the powerful Vatican bureaucrat in charge of the academy — insisted he had no business being there.

“They did not want to hear an off note,” de Larminat said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/how-climate-change-doubters-lost-a-papal-fight/2015/06/20/86af3182-15ce-11e5-8457-4b431bf7ed4c_story.html

Posted on

When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?

michaels-img1

By Patrick J. Michaels
This article appeared in TownHall.com on May 29, 2015.

Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.

The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.

The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.

The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments.

“The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.”

If you look at data through 1995 the forecast appears to be doing quite well. That’s because the computer models appear to have, at least in essence, captured two periods of slight cooling.

The key word is “appear.” The computer models are tuned to account for big volcanoes that are known to induce temporary cooling in the lower atmosphere. These would be the 1982 eruption of El Chichon in Mexico, and 1992’s spectacular Mt. Pinatubo, the biggest natural explosion on earth since Alaska’s Katmai in 1912.

Since Pinatubo, the earth has been pretty quiescent, so that warming from increasing carbon dioxide should proceed unimpeded. Obviously, the spread between forecast and observed temperatures grows pretty much every year, and is now a yawning chasm.

It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong?utm_content=bufferd4179&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Posted on

FEMA to require climate change plans for states seeking disaster relief

dinosaure

By Lydia Wheeler – 05/05/15 10:32 AM EDT

A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans.

The regulations, part of a FEMA State Mitigation Plan Review Guide issued last month, are not set to take effect until next March. But lawmakers are demanding an explanation for the rules now.

In a letter to FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate, the lawmakers said they’re concerned that the agency’s decision will create unnecessary red tape in the disaster preparedness process.

“As you know, disaster mitigation grants are awarded to state and local governments after a presidential major disaster declaration,” they wrote. “These funds are crucial in helping disaster-stricken communities prepare for future emergencies.”

The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

In the revised guide, the agency said mitigation planning regulation requires consideration of the probability of future hazards and events to reduce risks and potential dangers.

“Past occurrences are important to a factual basis of hazard risk, however, the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future,” FEMA said in its guide.

But in their letter, the senators said climate change is still being debated, citing “gaps in the scientific understanding around climate change.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/241050-gop-lawmakers-ask-fema-to-explain-new-disaster-grant-requirement

Posted on

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

Booker-puerto_3175673a

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry

By Christopher Booker

8:14PM BST 25 Apr 2015

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

Posted on

Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed – and recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’, says study

27EA516F00000578-3052926-image-a-11_1429822240331

Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records
It compared it to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC
Found that natural variability can slow or speed the rate of warming
These ‘climate wiggles’ were not properly accounted for in IPCC report

By ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 15:56 EST, 23 April 2015 | UPDATED: 18:31 EST, 23 April 2015

ReaGlobal warming hasn’t happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.

The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.

But it adds that these so-called ‘climate wiggles’ could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated.

The study compared its results to the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

‘Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,’ said Patrick Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University. ‘But this could change.’

The Duke-led study says that variability is caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html#ixzz3YFhytBcR

Posted on

USA Today Columnist Goes Where GMA Would Not: With Air 62 Pct. Cleaner, Look at Obama Himself As Possible Cause For Malia’s Asthma

ObamaSmoking2008

By Tom Blumer | April 12, 2015 | 8:41 PM EDT

A Wednesday “Good Morning America” piece gave President Barack Obama an open mic to claim that, in ABC’s words, “climate change became a personal issue for him when his older daughter Malia, now 16, was rushed to the emergency room with an asthma attack when she was just a toddler.”

Somehow, ABC managed to avoid another possible contributor — besides the obvious possibility that Malia developed asthma independent of external influences — namely the President’s 30-year smoking habit. He is said to have quit once and for all in 2011. USA Today columnist James S. Robbins wasn’t impressed with the President’s “reasoning,” and with good cause, as he articulated in a Thursday evening column. He even managed to get a “there’s been no warming for a long time” observation past USA Today’s editors (links are in original; bolds are mine):

Global warming didn’t give Malia asthma

President’s smoking more likely to cause daughter’s health problem than climate change.

President Obama blames global warming for his daughter’s asthma. Today that’s politically useful spin, but the science says something different. If you’re looking for a culprit, it just might be Malia’s dad.

… The president connected his daughter’s malady to global climate change. In a discussion Tuesday, he said “all of our families are going to be vulnerable” to global warming-induced health risks because “you can’t cordon yourself off from air or from climate.”

A White House fact sheet connected the dots, saying that asthma rates have more than doubled in the past 30 years, and that “climate change is putting these individuals and many other vulnerable populations at greater risk of landing in the hospital” like Malia.

The good news is that there is less reason for alarm than the White House suggests. The Environmental Protection Agency cautions that “outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma.” Yet the EPA also reports that our air quality has substantially improved; aggregate emissions of common pollutants have decreased 62% between 1980 and 2013. It is unlikely that cleaner air is causing the increase in asthma.

Whether there is a link between asthma and global warming, Malia herself hasn’t really experienced much. The high school junior was born in 1998, when temperatures spiked. By some measurements, the world hasn’t warmed significantly since then.

… Even when smoking is done outside, nicotine in infants’ hair is five times higher for babies with outside smoking parents than non-smoking parents. Smoking-related chemicals in infants’ urine is seven times higher. Other studies have found similar results.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “tobacco smoke is one of the most common asthma triggers,” and “if you have asthma, it’s important that you avoid exposure to secondhand smoke.”

No father wants to feel that his habits might hurt his children. But sometimes you have to look in the mirror to find the guilty party, not search the stratosphere for a hidden culprit.

– See more at: https://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/04/12/usa-today-columnist-goes-where-gma-would-not-air-62-pct-cleaner-look?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=obama-smoking#sthash.T4tOmJUu.dpuf

Posted on

Study Shows Warming Skeptics Know More Climate Science Than Believers

url

url

Study Shows Warming Skeptics Know More Climate Science Than Believers
By Jeff Dunetz

In order to cut off debate, believers of the global warming hypothesis disparage those who are skeptical of it by comparing them to people who say the Holocaust never happened, calling them “deniers.” Some, like Secretary of State Kerry, say skeptics are like members of the “flat earth society.” But, a study by Yale Professor Dan Kahan to be published in Advances in Political Psychology reports that skeptics score slightly better in a quiz about climate science than believers.

As reported by FoxNews.com 2,000 respondents were asked “nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.”

On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.

Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.

Antarctic ice should not be a problem, at least in the near term. A study released in January 2015 reported that the South Pole’s sea ice extent has been growing since 1979, while other research says Antarctic temperatures haven’t increased during the same period.

Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.

The believers who answered the above correctly are refusing to acknowledge that, 12,750 years ago, the Earth’s average temperature was about the same as it is today – but, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time was higher than current levels. They are also ignoring the fact that, during some of the Earth’s ice ages, the CO2 levels were 5-10x higher than today.

A similar study conducted in 2012 and published in the journal Nature Climate Change found that global warming skeptics know just as much about science; but the study detailed above questioned respondents specifically about climate science.

Climatologists who are skeptical about the extent of man-made global warming say the results don’t surprise them.

“It’s easy to believe in the religion of global warming.  It takes critical thinking skills to question it,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

As to the Secretary of State’s claim that warming skeptics are like the members of the Flat Earth Society, in February 2013 after President Obama made a similar Flat Earth Society claim, Salon sought out the president of the “Flat Earth Society” to find out how the group feels about climate change. Turns out, the group’s president, Daniel Shenton is a global warming believer:

I accept that climate change is a process which has been ongoing since beginning of detectable history, but there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in world-wide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age,” he said. “If it’s a coincidence, it’s quite a remarkable one. We may have experienced a temperature increase even without our use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, but I doubt it would be as dramatic as what we’re seeing now.

Thanks to the latest study by Professor Dan Kahan, we now know that along with having the same beliefs as the leader of the “flat-Earthers,” proponents of the global warming hypothesis are not as knowledgeable about climate science than those who are skeptical about climate change.

IMPORTANT PROGRAMMING NOTE:  For those who planned to attend the Yale University Global Divestment Day sponsored by Fossil Free Yale, the event has been canceled. Per the Daily Caller the “frigid, snowy weather set for this weekend will mean their global warming protest will have to be postponed.”

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/study-says-warming-skeptics-know-more-climate-science-believers

Posted on

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

url

url

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

By Christopher Booker

10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Posted on

Google Goes Off the Climate Change Deep End

abominable-snowman-520169

Google Goes Off the Climate Change Deep End
by Paul Driessen
December 29, 2014

Paul Driessen Co-authored this article with Chris Skates.

In a recent interview with National Public Radio host Diane Rehm, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said his company “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”

While he didn’t vilify us by name, Mr. Schmidt was certainly targeting us, the climate scientists who collect and summarize thousands of articles for the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered reports, the hundreds who participate in Heartland Institute climate conferences, and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed theOregon Petition, attesting that there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing catastrophic warming or climate disruption.

All of us are firm skeptics of claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. We are not climate change “deniers.” We know Earth’s climate and weather are constantly in flux, undergoing recurrent fluctuations that range from flood and drought cycles to periods of low or intense hurricane and tornado activity, to the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) and Little Ice Age (1350-1850) – and even to Pleistocene glaciers that repeatedly buried continents under a mile of ice.

What we deny is the notion that humans can prevent these fluctuations, by ending fossil fuel use and emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, which plays only an insignificant role in climate change.

The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging, such as 1900-1970, supposedly – during which time Earth actually warmed and then cooled, endured the Dust Bowl, and experienced periods of devastating hurricanes and tornadoes.

https://blog.heartland.org/2014/12/google-goes-off-the-climate-change-deep-end/

Posted on

Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

1409435267461_Image_galleryImage_polar1_JPG

Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore’s warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
An area twice the size of Alaska – America’s biggest state – was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
These satellite images taken from University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated

By DAVID ROSE FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY

PUBLISHED: 17:04 EST, 30 August 2014 | UPDATED: 03:56 EST, 31 August 2014

The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’

Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3ByplHC2l 


Posted on

Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

abominable-snowman-520169

Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

Ice is covering 16m sq km, more than 2.1m unusual for time of year
UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing

By DAVID ROSE

PUBLISHED: 16:01 EST, 5 July 2014
The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.
In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html#ixzz36jMDsV5m