From the “settled science” department and former chief alarmist Jay Zwally, who for years had said the Arctic was in big trouble (only to have his prediction falsified), comes this Emily Litella moment in climate science: “Never mind!”. Curiously, WUWT reported back in 2012 about an ICEsat study by Zwally that said: ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses. I surmise that with the publication of this second study, the original is now confirmed. I suppose John Cook will have to revise his “Denial 101” video on Antarctica now.
From the NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER via press release:
NASA study: Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”
Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally.
“If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.
Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.
“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.
The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.
Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.
“Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.
To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”
###
Source: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
In a piece at Nature News, Zwally has said:
“Parts of Antarctica are losing mass faster than before,” says Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of a paper to appear in theJournal of Glaciology1. “But large parts have been gaining mass, and they’ve been doing that for a very long time.”
The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes.
“I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.
Gee, thanks.
The study:
Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses
Source: Journal of Glaciology doi: 10.3189/2015JoG15J071
Abstract:
Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet impact sea-level rise as climate changes, but recent rates have been uncertain. Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt a–1. Gains of 136 Gt a–1 in East Antarctica (EA) and 72 Gt a–1 in four drainage systems (WA2) in West Antarctic (WA) exceed losses of 97 Gt a–1 from three coastal drainage systems (WA1) and 29 Gt a–1 from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP). EA dynamic thickening of 147 Gt a–1 is a continuing response to increased accumulation (>50%) since the early Holocene. Recent accumulation loss of 11 Gt a–1 in EA indicates thickening is not from contemporaneous snowfall increases. Similarly, the WA2 gain is mainly (60 Gt a–1) dynamic thickening. In WA1 and the AP, increased losses of 66 ± 16 Gt a–1 from increased dynamic thinning from accelerating glaciers are 50% offset by greater WA snowfall. The decadal increase in dynamic thinning in WA1 and the AP is approximately one-third of the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2, which should buffer additional dynamic thinning for decades.
Full study: OPEN SOURCE
zwally-antarctica-study (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So at the current rate of imagined warming touted by the alarmist faction of the discipline formerly known as climate science, our oceans should dry up by 2100 with all that water locked up in Antarctica’s interior.
The GRACE satellite mission says that the Antarctic is loosing mass. If it is actually gaining mass then the GRACE satellite mission is wrong! If the GRACE satellite mission is wrong then it’s measurement of Greenland’s ice mass loss is probably wrong too. Since the GRACE measurement of Greenland’s mass loss is about the same proportions relative to the ice available as it’s incorrect measurement of Antarctica’s mass loss then Greenland is probably gaining mass just like Antarctica. If that is true then there can’t be much sea level rise so the sea level rise measurements must be wrong too!
For years, the MEDIA reports ” The Antarctica is losing ice FASTER THAN EXPECTED by the cimate scientists””” …….and this is the problem. “Faster than expected”. and for this reason, the world must worry, and satellite measurements are unimportant, because those do not make it into the media.
I don’t suppose it could *possibly* occur to Zwally that the currently-measured sea level rises are entirely due to fraudulent adjustments.
After some time searching – I am unable to find an example of this study being reported through any major media channels. “Antarctica Not Melting Away, After All” it should say – but nothing – silence – tumbleweeds.
The Daily Mail mentioned Antarctic Science – but only because a researcher had been sadly drowned by a Leopard Seal. Nothing about the fact that the entire continent isn’t really disappearing into the sea – as formerly supposed.
If this had been an announcement of ice losses then we’d have heard about through the BBC and Guardian.
But, why has this wonderful news not been picked up by anyone?
Why am I even asking that question?
indefatigablefrog If this hit the MSM it would be ah catastrophic. Think of the millions of people who would lose their purpose in life, who would be condemned to an eternity of aimlessly wondering the city streets. With no worthy signs to proudly carry forth. They would become mindless crusaders without a cause, No crusade to bond to, Ah I’m not laying on to thick am I?
michael 🙂
I had a hunch this was happening. Same is probably happening in interior Greenland. I wonder why the study stops at 2008? That’s almost 8 years ago.
The satellite was decommissioned in 2010. If memory serves, it used lasers that started failing in 2009. So 2008 was probably the last complete year of data.
But, but, but…GRACE….
I do not mean to hurt feelings or insult any other commenter.
Using logic in place of science I conclude that Earth should warm from the LIA and the cold of the 70s so temps should rise a bit.
Rising temps should melt ice everywhere, Maybe only a little ice but some somewhere.
Greenland is not losing ice. Antarctica is gaining ice. Arctica is neutral. Glaciers appear about even though perhaps losing a tad.
Adding those data points together I think temps are not rising at all. I conclude that we are likely cooling by a tiny bit since we all KNOW Earth never stays at the same exact temp.
This leads me to the conclusion that the GHG hypothesis is pure politics.
Finally, using actual science, logic and 66 years of experience I believe the 50s and 60s and 70s beatnics, hippies and “new agers” want to destroy modern Capitalist society and just don’t CARE about facts and logic.
I mean no insult but the “liberal” position has become stupid, vapid and pointless outside politics. Whatever is happening with Earth’s climate GHGs are either irrelevant or nothing at all..
JH
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-23/americans-have-never-been-so-sure-about-climate-change-even-republicans
IF you believe this poll something has shifted.
The GOP party is not normally recognized as the bastion of beatniks, hippies, yippies, new agers and liberals. They are typically identified as supporters of “capitalism”.
So why is the party shifting ?
Do they feel they have to compete w Hillary ?
The science supports it less not more than b4.
Is it for da money ?
Do they see green in being green ?
Serious thoughts: The actual questions have to be “tested”. Phrasology alters outcomes. The questioner alters outcomes. The respondents must be accurately classified and nearly never are. If Bloomberg (Miky’s employees) used the vote histories to select repeated Republican Primary Voters would the results change? Folks want to be polite anbd agreeable. Well, most folks answering surveys do or they would refuse to answer. Respondents often lie.
My BA in Psychology (1971 SIU) does not qualify me for much but I am also a Republican Precint Committeeman and a Vice Chairman of the County Party. Surveys conducted by Bloomberg will ALWAYS (near enough anyway) give results biased toward hard left positions. You will recognize what “push polls” are and most stuff are pretty much “push polls”. How would the authors get on with their liberal friends if they got the “wrong” results?
As “warmists” interpret potential science to match their prejudgedices so too do journalists. Irritating the Editors and management by finding skepticism damages careers at Bloomberg.
Easy example is gun control. Hard to square the different survey results on gun control. Who asks, what is asked and of whom the asking is done make for REALLY big differences in results.
In short, I am skeptical about Bloombergs numbers. The Pew survey is different. My experience even more so.
JH
Thanks for the serious reply.
Bloomberg is thus biased and should go with my Paul Bunyan books.
The Pew survey breaks it down further. You can identify the most likely demographic for a warmist. If I read it right, it’s a younger minority female, college science degreed, identifying as a liberal democrat.
If you don’t mind, please scan the Pew and see what conclusion you come to.
I haven’t done the same for the least likely.
Busy day. Will look later.
JH
Pew digs even deeper.
Lots of fodder for target group discussion.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/chapter-2-climate-change-and-energy-issues/
I think it is a case of people saying what they think the questioner wants to hear, because they are not comfortable getting into a dispute about it.
The ” Climate ” has been changing for 4.3 billion years !!! Loaded question !!
“I suppose John Cook will have to revise his “Denial 101” video on Antarctica now.”
Yeah right, like that’s EVER going to happen!
John Cook reconsider?
Hah!
He would have to take his fingers out of his ears and stop shouting…lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalicanthearyoullalalalallalalalalalalicanthearyoulalalalalalala…
The following question isn’t specifically related to the article itself, but more so the website.
Is WUWT actually the world’s most viewed site on climate change? Are there any statistics/evidence that I can see?
If you do comparisons with other climate blogs on Alexa, WUWT wipes the floor with the other blogs.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/the-other-divergence-problem-climate-communications/
In answer to second question : Yes see the middle of the menubar at the top of the page which says REFERENCE PAGES
..Last time I looked at NASA’s pages their argument focused on “97% say” which of course is not science but propaganda based on the fallacy of argument from authority.
NASA is too busy making Muslims feel good about themselves to actually worry about science !!
As regard page views one way to check is to look at the Alexa rankings for
1. http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/Society/Issues/Environment/Climate_Change
and 2. http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views
where they have chosen to put WUWT
You can see they rank WUWT higher than all the websites in the first category
Of course other general sites like general green or general science websites do rank higher, but they tackle a broader range of issues rather than being just focused on Climate Change. They may also differ in that they don’t provide a forum for free discussion on the topic.
The current strategy and propaganda blitz appears to be to muddying the waters, so that AGW or climate change does not require actual warming or a change, but is still an ongoing and terrible fact and factor to be reckoned with.
Don’t tell Bill Nye!!
Science Guy Bill Nye Explores How We Mourn a Changing Climate
In the face of losses caused by global warming, scientists, activists, and the public at large may be working through “climate change grief.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151131-climate-change-grief-bill-nye-explorer-television/
His is a particularly severe form of the pathology.
Well Menicholas maybe a little music to help Bill Nye along in “his” “climate change grief.”
And if not its still a great song by B.O.C.
michael
Always did love that tune Michael. Thanks.
But, I need more cowbell!
There oughtta be a law to tax or end this kind of programming…I’ve seen everything
“But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
Ground water depletion ends up in the oceans and according to a number of studies contributes con siderably to sea level rise. See for instance Geophysical Research Lettters article by Wada et al. 2010: “Global depletion of groundwater resources.” This is ignored by the iPCC.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
0.23 and 0.27 aren’t whole MILLIMETERS. At that rate it would take more than 4 years to reach a staggering 1 WHOLE millimeter!
I have printer paper thicker than twenty-three hundredths of a millimeter .
The difference between 0.27 mm of rise and the previous estimate of 0.23 mm of loss is 0.5 mm/year. I think it would be good for all of us if we knew where that 0.5 mm/year is coming from- don’t you?
Yes, we should indebt future generations for some more tens of billions of dollars in order to pay for making such wild ass guesses about stuff that does not matter and we have no affect on, and is almost surely comically mistaken to begin with.
Luke, I’m in the US so had just a vague idea of how small 0.5 mm is. Turns out it is 0.019685 inches which equates to the thickness of about 4 1/2 dollar bills. Take 3 minutes to watch the very illustrative video at the link below, about the difficulties of measuring sea level. Then please come back and let me know how
1) how confident you are that we know the sea level to this level of precision and
2) whether you still think we should invest any effort in finding out where that .5mm is coming from
“ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”
How does this “solve the problem” of Antarctica’s mass balance? This just sounds like a big waste of money to me. If Antarctica is growing, so what? If it’s shrinking, so what? We already have dedicated satellites to measure this,why spend even more to get a more precise measurement of the ice thickness. Whether CAGW is “settled science” or not, either way this sounds like wasted money that would be better spend almost anywhere else.
What can’t you understand about more precise being better? The increase or decrease in ice mass in Antarctica has huge consequences for anyone living near a coast.
If my local supermarket installed new scientific balances to weigh produce meat and bulk foods, there is no question that they would be more precise than their current technology. But does that make it better? The precision is entirely unnecessary for the purpose, and only adds more unnecessary expense. I would go shop elsewhere.
What has huge consequences for anyone living near a coast has not changed…large coastal storms including hurricanes, and what the tide is doing when they hit.
Compared to storms and tides, the sea level rise in a hundred years does not amount to enough to even get anyone’s ankles wet.
And if people are so worried about sea level rise, why are the shorelines and rivers all over the country lined with expensive buildings?
And why are storm damaged properties still being rebuilt as fast as possible after any storm damage?
Why, in fact, was New Orleans rebuilt in place, when the city is largely below sea level and sinking more every day…a trend which cannot be stopped?
So how much heat does 82 billion Tonnes of water release into the air when it turns to ice?
Heat of fusion of water is 334kJ/kg. 82 billion tonnes is 82 trillion kg, or 82 x 10^12 kg. The freezing ice releases 82 x 10^12 x 334kJ of energy, or 27 x 10^15 kJ.
To put this in perspective, incident solar radiation is 173,000 terrawatts. (173,000 x 10^12 watts, or 1.7 x 10^14 kW or kJ/s). The freezing ice releases about 200 seconds worth of incident radiation.
A typical thunderstorm has an energy of 10^15 joules, so the energy from this freezing water is the same as 27,000 thundrstorms. At any given time there are about 2000 thunderstorms occuring on Earth.
The tides have been measured daily at Fort Denison,Sydney Harbour for some 160 odd years. No appreciable change has been noted.
i liked this one from “stephan the denier”
‘on Antarctic; when the steam from your coffee cup goes out at 95C, (203F)- it takes 6-9 seconds to turn into ice crystals => therefore: -” debating about the amount of ice on the polar caps as indicators of ”global temperature” only serves the Warmist agenda!!!!!!!!!”
Arctic ice mass (30%) at its greatest extent for 11 years
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Eliza, the link you provide is for sea ice extent, not mass. It is also for coastal zones masked out, This has been replaced with this one displaying absolute sea ice extent estimates:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
This shows current extent to be well below 1979-2000 mean.
Estimates = Guesstimates.
But thanx for playing…
All sea ice extent graphs are estimates, including the one Eliza linked to. There is no absolute clear line where ice ends and water begins. Someone has to draw a line of demarcation, giving rise to an estimate of the ice area. This estimate is quite close to a measurement, given satellite data.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Devastating news for global warming alarmists, direct from the headquarters of global warming alarmism – NASA
Ouch.
Grace above Greenland is massively gaining ice as well
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/greenland-blowing-away-all-records-for-ice-gain/
Great citing Eliza! Add the effect of heat content to prevent even lower temps (I know, but a little effect) and that melting will absorb heat and “their” whole idea falls apart.
We sure have smart people commenting.
Eliza, the graph you show is the Surface Mass Balance. From the web site you got it from:
“For an ice sheet that neither grows or shrinks, there is…a balance between
•the amount of snow that falls and is compressed to ice
•the amount of snow and ice that melts or evaporates (sublimates) and
•the amount of ice that flows away due to the ice motion
The two first contributions make up the surface mass balance.”
It is therefore incorrect to say that the graph shows a gain of ice, as it does not include the ice removed by flowing.
They say “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr”.
seaice,
It is amusing to observe the emphasis that the alarmist cult places on “ice”. The planet is recovering from an extremely cold period (the LIA). Naturally, polar ice may retreat. But interestingly, global ice cover is pretty much unchanged.
Also, please refrain from trying to scare people with your “gigatons” of ice. Use percentages, and stick with global numbers. Because the scare is over global warming, see? And your “gigatons” amount to a tiny fraction of a percent.
Just like global T, global ice cover fluctuates. But not a whole lot, and certainly not to the extent that should cause any alarm. The “ice” hoax is the last, desperate scam of the eco-loons. It is a complete non-problem, and the only reason it’s even mentioned is because every other scary alarmist prediction has been completely wrong, while the “disappearing Arctic ice” predictions have only been 90% wrong.
The “ice” scare is all you’ve got. That’s pretty lame, no? Why not do the honest thing, and just admit you were wrong? “Ice” just isn’t a problem — and it’s not disappearing, as the endless predictions stated would happen.
Hey db, if the website Eliza linked to had used percentages, then so would I. In fact the scale on the graph is in Gt. I am only quoting from the same source. Eliza said Greenland was gaining ice, I pointed out that her source says Greenland is losing ice. The amount is not all that important in this context, but that is what they said, so I quoted them.
The original post talked about gaining 82 billion tonnes (82Gt) of ice per year – why did you not criticise this and put “billions” in scare quotes?
seaice,
I didn’t even read the link, because as I said, the “ice” scare is nonsense. The alarmist contingent clings to “ice” like a drowning man clings to a toothpick. The Arctic was ice-free before any human industrial emissions. Per Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is natural variability, and adding an extraneous variable like CO2 just needlessly muddies the waters.
The alarmist crowd picked the wrong side of the argument, which is why you’re getting thrashed repeatedly. Global warming stopped, but you still try to find irrelevant factoids like “ice” that you mistakenly believe will support your ‘dangerous AGW’ HOAX.
And that’s all DAGW is: a hoax on the taxpaying public. It is nothing more than pseudo-science; politics covered by a thin veneer of your anti-science eco-religion. None of it can withstand even the mildest scrutiny.
You lost the debate a long time ago, when Planet Earth began deconstructing your belief system by not warming up as predicted. Now you’re fixated on “ice”. That argument couldn’t be any more lame. Polar ice naturally fluctuates, and you cannot find a century-long time frame where global temperatures remained within a 0.7ºC range. What do you expect, a 0.00ºC change?? Do you really think that tiny wiggle in global T over the past century is a problem at all?
Well, do you?
“Well do you?”
I think Arctic sea ice area is on a downward trend that shows no sign of stopping. I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is. Are you?
It is a bit pointless accusing me of being fixated on ice when that is the subject of the post, and I have simply replied to other posters.
seaice,
I offered a wager. I was generous: offering 5 – 1 odds, based on your pal’s stated belief.
But you tap-danced around that, avoiding it completely. So now you want to replace it with something you fabricated, and which as I pointed out before, is nothing more than a coin flip?? As if. Coin flips are for chumps; that leaves me out. Unless, of course, you’re willing to do just like me, and offer 5 – 1 odds. I’ll take that coin flip. Even if I lose, it’s still a good bet to fade.
So if you ever stop deflecting, you can take my wager. Or not. That’s up to you. But anything else is just game-playing, and you’re just not smart enough to pull that off.
And you are fixated on ice, ‘seaice’: you’re fixated on the belief that Arctic ice is gonna disappear. A lot of other folks believe that, too. That’s what my original offer to Chris was about. By 2019, remember?
dbstealy.
“I offered a wager… based on your pal’s stated belief.”
1) Why do you think I should bet on an offer you made to someone else based on a position that I have never held nor expressed?
2) Your offer was not based on their stated belief – they went to some lengths to explain to you what their beliefs actually were, which you apparently failed to understand.
I offered you a bet based on your stated beliefs.
You think it is a coin flip, i.e. 50:50. That must be because you believe it is equally likely that there will be more sea ice or less sea ice coverage over the next three years than the last three years. Your actual position is that it is equally likely the ice is growing or shrinking. That is depite your stated belief that it is growing.
I, on the other hand, believe it is shrinking and that there is clear evidence of this from the trends. I am therefore prepared to bet 50:50 odds on what I think is a greater than 50:50 chance of winning. I have a positive expected return. If you need 5:1 odds, then you presumably think it is about 5 times more likely the ice will shrink than it will grow.
I have confidence in my belief, you have no confidence in your assertions that the ice is growing. Why not just say you don’t believe the ice is growing if that is the case?
To help you out, I will say I don’t believe the Arctic will be ice free by 2019 and that is why I will not take the bet you offered to someone else. See? it is easy.
seaice, me boi, you are certainly amusing. I’ve pointed out more than once that you aren’t smart enough to paint skeptics into a corner, which you keep trying to do. You aren’t even smart enough to see that the planet is busy falsifying everything you believe in: there has been no global warming for many years. But you always ignore that inconvenient fact, which falsifies your whole belief system. Naturally, you will deflect onto something else… like ‘seaice’. heh
Next, you say the Arctic won’t be ice-free by 2019, which is what your pal tried to argue. I offered him generous terms to put his money where his mouth is, but he tucked tail and ran. So did you. You chickened out, then you tried to cover it by inventing something that only exists in your alarmed mind. Amusing, but lame.
It doesn’t give me that much of a thrill to debate morons, but in your case I enjoy it. Now, sit up straight and pay attention: I offered generous 5 : 1 odds that Chris was wrong. I even said you could fade me, but you chickened out, too. You don’t get to step in and change my offer to some vague, unquantified, nebulous idea you have, trying to stack the deck so you might win for a change. In other words, you don’t get to make up the rules. Another way of putting it: take it or leave it. I made an offer. You? Pff-f-f-ft. You’re just deflecting. But you don’t get to make up the rules, as much as you would love to have that privilege. Unless you accept my offer, I will simply ignore anything you invent to take its place. If you accept my offer, and then I’ll consider what you have to say.
To recap: your #1 is pure projection; #2 is covered above — and I’ll add #3, which you always ignore, and which is the central point that debunks everything you’re trying to either ignore, or bluster your way through: global warming stopped many years ago. Planet Earth is showing you to be just an eco-religionist, proselytizing your greenie nonsense to skeptics, who know better.
Your basic conjecture has been falsified, so the right thing to do, per the scientific method, is to go back and try to figure out why you were so totally wrong. Instead, you keep emitting twaddle about “ice”, because it’s the last, desperate hope of your climate alarmist cult. That prediction was only 90%+ wrong, while every other alarmist prediction has been 100.0% wrong. But it’s all you’ve got.
So keep ’em coming, “seaice”. You’re still good for a laugh. I like pulling the wings off flies, too. ☺
His bet seems reasonable. “Yes” or “no” DB. And then can we kill this annoying lingering thread?
Mary Brown,
Then you take his bet, if it seems so “reasonable” to you. It doesn’t seem that way to me. And he won’t take mine — but he insists that I have to take his. Doesn’t work that way in the real world.
And thanx for keeping the thread going… ☺
dbstealy.
“And he won’t take mine — but he insists that I have to take his.”
You are obviously having a problem understanding. I do not believe the Arctic will be ice free in 2019. I agree with you on that. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I have never said I believed it would be ice free by 2019. You have won that straw man argument already, so there is no point mentioning it again.
You, on the other hand, have stated several times that you believe the arctic ice is growing. I have stated that I believe it is shrinking. We now have a disagreement about something. I think we can see who has most confidence in their belief by a small wager. You refuse the wager. I conclude I have more confidence in my belief than you have in yours.
I have explained that I won’t take your bet because I agree with you. Do you refuse my bet because you agree with me?
seaice,
I’ve tried to explain to you that you’re just not smart enough to box me into a corner like you keep trying to do. But I suppose you’re not smart enough to understand that, either.
You keep saying that my position is that Arctic ice is growing. To be generous about your misunderstanding, I have repeatedly posted links (and quite a lot of them) showing, as I wrote, that :
Just like global T, global ice cover fluctuates.
I haven’t posted charts that make future predictions. Those are what the alarmist crowd relies on. If you’re assuming that I’m making predictions, I’m not. Karl Popper understood what you’re going through:
It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.
So I should have considered my audience.
I know that Arctic ice has been growing for the past decade,:
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-04-03-37-12.png
As we see, Arctic ice cover is at a 10-year high. Sorry about that, it must really sting to see what the planet is telling you.
You seem to be confused about the difference between reality, and future predictions (which are not reality). Now, if you want to fade me, fine. If you want to give me the same odds I offered you and Chris, fine. But coin flips? Get real.
dbstealey: “If you’re assuming that I’m making predictions, I’m not.”
Yes you are. You offered a bet based on future outcomes. It is not the priniciple you object to. You can’t wriggle out by saying you don’t bet on future outcomes.
You said “Looks to me like sea ice is growing” and “Arctic sea ice is growing year-over-year” and “despite the wild-eyed scare stories, Arctic ice only dipped for a few years. It is recovering now.”
If the area does not grow over the next few years, then it is not a recovery. It is just ups and downs on a downward trend.
You seem to have very little confidence that it will grow, which is why you don’t take the bet. It is very clear now. I think you should withdraw your allegation that I am a moron.
seaice me boi, you quote me:
“Looks to me like sea ice is growing” &etc.
Observations are not predictions. But when you say:
It is just… on a downward trend.
That’s your prediction. And:
I think you should withdraw your allegation that I am a moron.
I withdraw it. Morons can’t help themselves.
There will not be an ice free Arctic summer by 2019. That is your prediction. I agree with your prediction. Therefore I will not bet against your prediction. You are quite happy to make and bet on predictions, just not my prediction. That is presumably because you think my prediction for a continuation of the downward trend in Arctic sea ice area is reasonable. Anyway, I think we are about done here.
O.T. but just for the fun of it, a new Whale has (it seems) just been confirmed. Oh well there goes the neighborhood.
http://news.yahoo.com/mystery-whale-species-finally-makes-appearance-225922746.html
enjoy
michael
Looks like someone’s going to be “disappeared” from NASA for blabbing about the Antarctic ice lies. Bad enough that he did it, worse that he exposed it just before Paris.
He forgot to mention that the only part losing mass is massively active geologically. But we can’t have everything.