Wc Claim State Environmental Guide: Fill & Download for Free

Yes of course. There is only local or regional weather and local temperatures. There is no global weather or temperature. We create a fiction when we make a single temperature number from statistical averages of many temperatures from stations around the world. The result is as meaningless as saying your body has an average temperature when your head is in an oven and your feet are in a fridge. Temperatures change every instant and are influenced by a variety of different things. Therefore when you put them together as an average over a month or a year the single statistic is no more valid than averaging telephone numbers to create a single telephone number from many numbers.Local weather about rain and sun baked in with decades of consistent weather is the most relevant picture of the climate. For example, because of the mountains and ocean in Greater Vancouver we say the ‘climate of South Delta’ municipality is much drier and sunnier than the wet ‘climate of Deep Cove’ where the rainfall is more than 3 times Delta. Understanding the local climate influenced us to buy our home in Delta because of its proven dryer weather or climate when we first came to Vancouver to teach at UBC in 1970.There is no doubt considerable hypocrisy about the claim that bad weather is not evidence of climate when it is cold as the past few years in North America and Europe. Except if there is a hot spell then the alarmists ignore the ‘weather label’ and cry global warming.The best example is the response of scientists and media to the recent long drought in California. The alarmists were certain it was stark evidence of climate change and would persist for the next 200 years. They were very wrong as the floods and massive record snow (ski resorts stay open through the summer) prove.The reality is the earth’s climate is complex, tumultuous, chaotic and nonlinear. For us it will always be unpredictable any more than two weeks out. This does not mean that we should ignore local weather. The North West has just had a spate of very cold late spring weather. Here is a news headlineBC Just Got Almost A Foot Of Snow And The Photos Are TragicIt's June-uary!A lot of BC residents were obviously shocked by the sudden snowfall, among them ski resorts who were getting set to open their mountain biking trails soon.It may be June but one of the biggest snowfalls this weekend was in ...Canada! Reports of snowfall @SilverStarMR Resort in BC give accumulation totals of 22-40cm in the last 24 hours. The cam image shows a buried snow measuring stick. Powder day?It may be June but one of the biggest snowfalls this weekend was in ...Canada! Reports of snowfall @SilverStarMR Resort in BC give accumulation totals of 22-40cm in the last 24 hours. The cam image shows a buried snow measuring stick. Powder day? pic.twitter.com/pp0t7fDza1— Snow Forecast.com (@SnowForecast) June 11, 2018Is this cold snowy weather relevant to the debate about global warming yes or no? Well the UN IPCC thought so as it predicted in its report in 2001 the winters would be moderate without snow. Winters have not been moderate for the past decade and this must put a cloud of doubt about the dooms day predictions of unprecedented warming.Further, there is no global weather or single global temperature in our non-equilibrium climate system. If I asked you what was Canada’s temperature last year you would laugh. The question is ridiculous because there is no single temperature either locally or globally. Temperatures vary every instant in every location day and night. How do presenting averages of a single temperature for a month or year for the whole world make any sense? They do not. Here is the supporting peer reviewed science.AbstractPhysical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed. Short title: Global Temperature?https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/860c/5a03ace0f1df81a6423b4494dcda4c024ee0.pdf“The problems with the popular "global temperature" statistics start with the lack of physical meaning, but they do not end there.” In TAKEN BY STORM two professors experts in statistics and mathematics shed light on the problem of temperature averages.Panic in the Streets“April 2002 in Ontario began with hot summer-like conditions. The offered up man-on-the-street interviews with leading questions about warming. But this only lasted a couple of days. The weather became colder-20 to 30'c colder. There was snow on the roofs in late April. There was snow in the first weeks of May and ice pellets in the middle of the month. These are not "average" conditions here by any means. While many were looking forward to warm weather, for us it was a relief. Belief in global warming seems to fall during such times. For a few quiet days there were no global-warming scare stories. But they returned as soon as it was warm enough for newsroom editors to have to turn the air conditioning back on in their cars. Curiously, there were no reporters sent to investigate whether the spring snow signaled a coming ice age'At one time there would have been, but there is no longer equality among the hysterias. As Chris drove his car in the middle of April, granular snow rattled off the windshield. But his car thermometer measured the external air temperature at 6C (42"F), which is well above freezing. How can there be snow when it is so far above freezing? It is only a paradox if you think that there is only one temperature in the world, or if you think that nothing else is going on other than hot and cold.But people who talk about climate change want to focus on temperature, to the exclusion of just about everything else. They talk of some temperature number instead of the temperature field. The irony is that the only world in which you could talk about climate in terms of a single temperature is one in which there could never be climate change!To restate one of Professor Thermos's points from chapter 3, temperature is not a single value in any physical system except one in "thermodynamic equilibrium." That is a state of the system where all processes that are going to happen have happened. Everything is played out and nothing changes anymore. The Earth is not in that state at all. If it were, we couldn’t have climate change at all, and there would be nothing to talk about in this book.So on Earth there is no single value for temperature. That is why ice pcllets could be formed even when the air temperature was 6"C. They were formed where it was colder and transported to where it was warm, just outside of Chris's windshield. There aren’t just a few temperatures either. There are more temperatures than there is room for thermometers. At every point there is a tcmperature for the material in that spot. It gets even more complicated if wc talk about the atmospheric radiation field, so we won't.There are infinitely many temperatures to be measured because there are infinitely many temperatures around us. There are infinitely many in the mountains and in the clouds and at the bottom of the ocean. There are temperatures everywhere. They are always changing, and any particular place does not need to have the same temperature as any other particular place, even if two differ terribly much from each other. Temperature is a field and not a single value. It is not the only physically relevant field. It really isn’t special. But temperature is the only quantity that most people talk about on the subject of climate, so we have to talk about it as if it was special. To specify, the temperature field, you need to know what all the temperatures are, at every place on Earth (in the ground, sky, and water), that particular instant. That is a lot of information to hold, but it is still not enough to tell you what the temperature field will be in 10 seconds, or months. The temperature field does not contain the information to tell you what it will be at the next instant.”Pages 132–134.Saying there is a global temperature is pure fantasy just like saying there is a Canadian or US temperature.Yes, weather is relevant even in the shorter term. The UN alarmists at the IPCC predicted moderate winters without snow in their 2001 report. I am quoting -““Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Third Assessment Report The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) stated very clearly, Ice Storms 15.2.4.1.2.4.N “The prediction of less snow has failed utterly.The massive uptick in snowfall on Alaska's peaks has no precedent in 1,200 years, researchers say: http://st.news/2D72VQd9:04 PM - 19 Dec 2017But we must not be fooled by the random, chaotic, nonlinear reality of the earth’s climate. Even with data for a 100 or a 1000 years a trend or climate direction my be wrong. All climate graphs are sawtooth this means they vary naturally from hot to cold. This has been reality for billions of years.A key sawtooth graph for the global warming debate is Arctic temperatures over the past 5000 years. The alarmists have made the Arctic the most important sawtooth temperature graph. They have made wildly ridiculous predictions and distorted and ignored data (the infamous hockey stick) to make their case for global warming. In Arctic the local weather taken over thousands of years shows Arctic temperatures are colder today than in the past. The variability is obviously natural uninfluenced by fossil fuels and the future is uncertain except it will go up and down.The sawtooth graph seems like a pattern, but predictability is impossible. The drivers of climate are too complex, especially the sun as the control knob of climate. All we can predict is severe temperature swings all the time. Look at the last 4000 years with 75 dramatic swings in temperature - the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice age very relevant to understand our climate today.Those holding onto the crumbling consensus of unprecedented warming resort to rebutting brutal record winters everywhere by saying this is just weather not climate.The response is hypocritical as whenever there is a hot day or two it is quickly named global warming. A powerful illustration of this deceit comes from the President of the US during the California drought. While most of the US suffered cold weather Obama alleged with the support of the National Geographic and a few scientists that California was a victim of global warming drought that will last for 200 years or more.More important is the fact only as recent as 1970 a few years of very cold weather caused some panic about the next ice age.“CLIMATE change alarmists conveniently ‘deny’ the existence of the 1970’s “global cooling” scare because such panic, a mere 40 years ago, threatens the legitimacy of the current “global warming” scare.HOWEVER, climate experts and government agencies of the day were indeed warning of impending climate doom and that we must take immediate “action” to avoid catastrophe.SOUND familiar?WARMING alarmists rebut the 1970’s global cooling scare with claims that the phenomenon wasn’t “peer-reviewed” or that a “consensus” of “97%” of “scientists” didn’t agree. However, it doesn’t take Einstein to realise that the fashionable eco-scare of the day was indeed very real…IN 1976 the CIA warned the cooling climate would bring – “drought, starvation, social unrest and political upheaval” :”21 Jul 1976 – C.I.A. WARNING – TroveC.I.A. WARNINGFrom a correspondent in WashingtonMAJOR world climate changes were under way that would cause economic and political upheavals “almost beyond comprehension”, an internal report of the Central Intelligence Agency has warned the US Government.“The new climatic era brings a promise of famine and starvation to many areas of the world”, the report warns.The report, which contends that the Climate changes began in 1960, is based on a study by Mr Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin.Its basic premise is that the world’s climate is cooling and will revert to conditions prevalent between 1600 and 1850 — when the earth’s population was less than 1,000 million and its rural, pre-industrial era civilisations were largely capable of feeding themselves.The report, which- was concerned with possible political and economic threats the United States could expect from such drastic events, said the starvation and famine would lead to social unrest and global migration of populations.21 Jul 1976 – C.I.A. WARNING – Trove*PEOPLE have been imagining that the climate is changing, exaggerating every weather event, getting widespread press coverage, and blaming it on man – for as long as there have been newspapers…The UN was so concerned about 1970’s man-made global cooling that they were assessing “several proposals” to “eliminate the ice” including spreading “soot or black dust on the frozen sea to absorb the sun’s heat and increase melting in the summer and spring”02 Feb 1972 – Scientists fear for Arctic Sea ice – TroveInternational Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – View Article – NYTimes.comTHE ICE AGE COMETH!In 1976, Schneider warned of disastrous global cooling, and reported his frustration that Nixon didn’t believe him :It is a fact that the temperature swings to colder in the seventies created some panic just like the swings to warmer in the eighties. In both cases the variability was natural and had been much greater in the past.If you take the view that we need a longer time line of weather to call it climate change this view is a full rebuttal of the alarmist cry of global warming. There has not been enough warm weather to make any trend or prediction. The scientists at the UN knew this and their emails are witness to the reason they started to fudge the data to make it warmer. However nature is having the last word and the weather everywhere is getting much colder as the sun goes blank. The public are no longer duped by phoney science and distorted data.In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'Larry Bell , CONTRIBUTORI write about aerospace, environment, energy, Second Amendment policy Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.President Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list. During his inaugural address he said: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”This sort of scary presidential prognostication isn’t new. He previously emphasized at the Democratic National Convention that global warming was “not a hoax”, referred to recent droughts and floods as “a threat to our children’s future”, and pledged to make the climate a second-term priority.As much as I hate to nit-pick his doomsday scenarios, it might be appropriate to correct a few general misconceptions before getting back to that “overwhelming judgment of science” stuff.Regarding wildfires, for example, their numbers since 1950 have decreased globally by 15%. According to the National Academy of Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until around midcentury.As for those droughts, a recent study published in the letter of the journal Nature indicates that globally, “…there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.” And as the U.N. Climate panel concluded last year: “Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”Also, by the way, global hurricane activity, measured in total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), is actually at a low not encountered since the 1970s. In fact, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century. Wilma, the last Category 3 or stronger storm, occurred more than seven years ago.But supposing these recent circumstances were different…because after all, climate really does change. Even virtually all of those who the president claims “deny” that “overwhelming science” recognize this. (If climate didn’t change, would we even need a word for it?)The larger issue has to do with just how many of those who stoke the global warming alarm fires have real confidence in that “science”. So let’s briefly review just a few candid comments that some of them have offered on this topic. These are but a very small sampling of my favorites.How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas:The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”How Some Key IPCC Researchers View Their Science:For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of the same researchers that are reported in the same year regarding whether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D. Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba: “…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.”Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: “Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear from later, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming or cooling!IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones, became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced “Experts warn that global warming [is] likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global warming-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring: “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long-term trends of cyclone activity?”Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.” After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author, resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter presenting his reasons.Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments:A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow---even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is."A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary...”In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably...”The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: "We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food."When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: "A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don't know what to do.”Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”.Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.e Climate Skeptic‏ @Carbongate 10h10 hours agoIn Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE TEMPERATURE IS SWINGING DOWNThe ‘Entire’ Atlantic Ocean is Cooling, contrary to media reports http://climatechangedispatch.com/the-entire-atlantic-ocean-is-cooling-contrary-to-media-reports/ …Arctic sea ice extent expanding for past 7 years.