Claim: Arctic sea ice plays a pivotal role in the Arctic methane cycle

Nature study on greenhouse gas feedback mechanisms between the atmosphere, sea ice and ocean

From the ALFRED WEGENER INSTITUTE, HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR POLAR AND MARINE RESEARCH

The ice-covered Arctic Ocean is a more important factor concerning the concentration of the greenhouse gas methane in the atmosphere than previously assumed. Experts from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) report on the newly discovered interactions between the atmosphere, sea ice and the ocean in a recent online study in the journal Nature’s Scientific Reports.

Sea ice forms a natural barrier on the Central Arctic Ocean, limiting gas exchange between water and atmosphere. Over the past several years, the summer sea ice cover in the Arctic has rapidly decreased. “We’re investigating how the changed conditions are affecting the geochemical interaction between the ocean, ice and atmosphere,” explains Dr Ellen Damm, the first author of the study and a biogeochemist at the Alfred Wegener Institute. “We were able to confirm that the surface water in the central Arctic contains higher methane concentrations than the atmosphere, which means the Arctic Ocean is a potential source of atmospheric methane. That makes it fundamentally different from oceans in lower latitudes, which – except for a few sporadic sources – are considered methane sinks.”

For the study, Damm and her colleagues from the AWI, the Finnish Meteorological Institute and the University of Bremen analysed geochemical and oceanographic data gathered during a 2011 expedition to the Arctic with the research icebreaker Polarstern. They measured methane levels in both the sea ice and in the water directly below it, and in deeper seawater entirely unaffected by the ice. “Our study shows that there are previously overlooked feedbacks between ice melting and formation, the atmosphere, and the seawater influenced by ice,” says Damm. Among other factors, they analysed the salt solution, i.e. the brine, which is constitutes concentrated seawater resulting during the formation of sea ice. They found that the brine had a thousand times higher concentration of methane than the atmosphere – proof that sea ice can be a source of methane.

As a result of the melting and freezing processes, methane in the brine channels can be released into the seawater. Further, the water remains in stable layers, due to the different densities of freshwater and saltwater. As such, the methane from the brine channels remains in the uppermost water layer throughout the summer. When autumn storms set in and it gets colder, different water layers become mixed (convection), which can release the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. At that time of year the sea ice cover is fragmented and the “lid” on the ocean has almost disappeared, conditions that are conducive to the release of methane into the atmosphere. The convection-based mixing continues in the winter, and methane continues to escape through the leads between ice floes.

The stable water layers prevent the methane from mixing to greater depths of the Arctic Ocean; the significantly lower methane concentrations (compared to the atmosphere) in the lower layer unaffected by the ice, verify this process. This has two effects: firstly, the newly discovered and as such not previously accounted for near-surface feedback mechanism can lead to the direct release of methane from the sea ice and ocean into the atmosphere. Secondly, the exchange between atmosphere and the deeper Arctic Ocean is reduced, which also limits the Arctic Ocean’s capacity to act as a methane sink. Co-author and AWI oceanographer Prof Ursula Schauer summarises the study’s importance as follows: “The role of sea ice in gas exchange and gas flux is much more complex than previously assumed, and the processes at work in the Northern Ocean differ greatly from those in lower latitudes. These aspects have to be kept in mind in future climate models.” Further, she points out, the study raises the question on where the methane originates. Conceivably, methane could be produced in sea ice as it drifts through the Arctic, or methane trapped in sea ice could be transported from other regions.

###

Original publication:

Ellen Damm, Bert Rudels, Ursula Schauer, Susan Mau and Gerhard Dieckmann: Methane excess in Arctic surface water-triggered by sea ice formation and melting. Nature online:Scientific Reports | 5:16179 | DOI: 10.1038/srep16179

Advertisements

112 thoughts on “Claim: Arctic sea ice plays a pivotal role in the Arctic methane cycle

  1. They talk about rapid loss of Arctic ice, but I stopped reading when I discovered that they used data from 2011 only. Since then Arctic ice seems to be recovering nicely.

    • Antarctic ice is recovering, but only in a relatively short time frame. Artic ice continues to melt. Land mass ice is melting at an accelerated rate. Overall it’s bad news for the climate.

      • Lee, Antarctic ice, both land and sea ice are in record territory (whatever that means) as well Article ice has been recovering over the last four years, though it did regress this year, might be an El Nino link.

      • Lee Henderson
        You really don’t ever fact check the things you say do you?
        You are like the adult who believes a boogieman lives under his bed because when he was a child another child told him such. In the future before you speak you should check under the bed.
        Of course, come to think of it, most climate alarmists won’t look under the bed not because they are scared they might find a boogieman there — but because they are scared to death they WON”T find one there.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • **Artic ice continues to melt.** says Lee Henderson. Which fiction novel is Lee reading. It is also “Arctic”.

      • “**Artic ice continues to melt.** says Lee Henderson. Which fiction novel is Lee reading.”
        Same one I am, but I am prepared to back up my hypothesis with some cash. I read on these pages recently that exposure to risk concentrates the mind. The offer I made to dbstealey (that he turned down) I open up to others. If you do not think the Arctic continues to melt, I will wager that the next three years Arctic sea ice minima will on average be lower than the last three years minima. This represents a shrinking or melting of the ice. Anyone that believes the ice is growing should consider that a good bet. Gerald Machnee apparently thinks so, as does Eugene WR Gallun, who not only disagrees with the shrinking theory, but considers it so laughable as to be comparable with belief in the boogieman. Tetris thinks the corner has been turned, so presumably thinks ice will continue to grow. I would be happy for Anthony Watts or any other agreeable third party to take the stakes and decide the winner.
        Rainer Bensch has a good point -will loss of Arctic sea ice be good or bad? That is something worth discussing. Why defend the indefensible when there are real issues there.

        • Umm-mm, seaice, you turned down my original offer (with 5 – 1 odds in your favor, I might add). You proposed instead a wager that amounts to a coin flip. As I told you at the time, I’m not stupid, but I think you are.
          ‘seaice’ cherry-picks the Arctic because that part of the ‘polar see-saw’ was just in its negative phase (it is now recovering).
          But the argument has always been about global warming. Therefore, ‘seaice’ has to ignore the Antarctic. And when we look at Arctic ice cover we see that it is above its 10-year trend, and rising:
          http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-12-02-53-45.png
          ‘seaice’ is just another True Believer. Mile thick glaciers could descend over his head, and he would still be parroting the “dangerous AGW” narrative.

        • seaice

          Rainer Bensch has a good point -will loss of Arctic sea ice be good or bad? That is something worth discussing. Why defend the indefensible when there are real issues there.

          Ah, (finally) a valid question.
          And your answer: It depends on what day-of-year the Arctic sea ice is “missing” (from the assumed (self-declared, self-serving ) “ideal” 1979-1990 average Arctic sea ice areas.)
          On average, at today’s Arctic sea ice areas for each day of the year,
          Sept = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, cools the arctic ocean.
          Oct = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, cools the arctic ocean.
          Nov = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, cools the arctic ocean.
          Dec = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, cools the arctic ocean.
          Jan = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, cools the arctic ocean.
          Feb = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, cools the arctic ocean.
          Mar = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, cools the arctic ocean (a little bit).
          Apr = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, warms the arctic ocean (a little bit).
          May = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, warms the arctic ocean.
          June = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, warms the arctic ocean.
          July = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, warms the arctic ocean.
          Aug = loss of Arctic sea ice, a negative Arctic sea ice anomaly, warms the arctic ocean (slightly).
          Now, if there were Arctic sea ice covering the Bermuda Triangle (latitude 23-28) 12 months of the year, that much-hyped exaggeration of Arctic amplification (runaway sea ice loss and subsequent Arctic ocean warming) calculations would be correct. I too would be worried about sea ice loss.
          If there were sea ice off the coasts of African Morocco, Texas, California, Florida and India.
          But there is no sea ice melting off of Miami’s beaches, and so your concerns about Arctic sea ice loss are meaningless seven months of the year. Or, differently, five months of the year, the Arctic Ocean warms slightly if the sea ice anomaly is negative, and seven months of the year the Arctic Ocean cools if the Arctic sea ice anomaly is negative.
          On the other hand, that irritating ever-larger area of Antarctic sea ice IS at latitudes where IT DOES reflect solar energy back into space 11 months of the year. At latitudes where many years of ever-larger POSITIVE Antarctic sea ice anomalies ARE reflecting vast amounts of solar energy back into space BEFORE they can heat the Southern Oceans.
          So, today’s sea ice anomalies ARE COOLING the planet every day but those across June-July. Just in time for the ever-longer “pause” despite the benefits of rising CO2 levels.

      • dbstealey and everyone else. People here have claimed that they believe Arctic sea ice is growing. They have claimed that you would have to be so gullible to believe in the boogieman, or that you have not checked your facts to believe otherwise. Yet no one is prepared to stand by these claims. I am prepared to stand by my claims that it is continuing to shrink. So please, if nobody thinks Arctic sea ice is growing, can everyone refrain from saying that they do, and please stop treating those that believe it is shrinking as idiots. dbstealey has admitted he thinks it is a 50:50 chance of shrinking over the next 3 years, so it is clearly not an absurd position to think it is shrinking.
        “‘seaice’ cherry-picks the Arctic because that part of the ‘polar see-saw’ was just in its negative phase (it is now recovering).
        But the argument has always been about global warming. Therefore, ‘seaice’ has to ignore the Antarctic. But when we look at global ice cover, we see that it is above its 10-year trend, and rising:”
        Fine if you think Arctic sea ice is shrinking, but it doesn’t matter because Antarctic sea ice is growing. If you think that then say so and we don’t have to waste time arguing about something everyone agrees on.
        RACookPE1978 says Arctic sea ice shrinking is cooling the planet, and obviously opening the North West passage will have significant economic benefits. Polar bears will probably adapt to hunting on the increasingly fecund land. Why not say the ice is going, but that will be a good thing?

        • seaice

          RACookPE1978 says Arctic sea ice shrinking is cooling the planet, and obviously opening the North West passage will have significant economic benefits.

          Yes, Arctic sea ice LOSSES (from today’s Arctic sea ice areas) help cool the planet – But, again, you fail to even quote me correctly when you try to summarize something you apparently agree with! Increased losses of Arctic sea ice from today’s limits will tend to cool the planet, but only 7 months of the year. The five summer months (April-May-June-July-August) some heat energy is indeed absorbed into the Arctic ocean. But, since forecasts began in 1959, the DMI forecast for temperature at 80 north latitude has NOT ONCE INCREASED IN THOSE SUMMER MONTHS!
          No, you are wrong, I have NOT claimed that a Northwest Passage will become economically viable nor important. Rather, I have noted that a northeast passage (over top of Russia-Siberia-Bering Strait to China and Japan) “might” become profitable sometime, but I doubt it. Further, I have no idea why you are throwing that idea out. It is a foolish promotion of a foolish publicity stunt, NOT a viable commercial route.
          There are way too few days of ice-free north Canadian waters (at most, in the most clear of year, only 2-3 weeks a year!) to schedule a ship to risk departing Europe at exactly the right time to make ONE one-way trip across the Canadian sea ice and ice-blocked straits. And, if the least thing goes wrong? That ship is trapped in ice over the not only the next winter, but cannot move until July-August a year later!

        • dbstealey and everyone else… I am sorry you were not able to follow the arguments.
          Could you be any more insufferable, talking down to people like that? That’s irritating, especially coming from a scientific know-nothing, or at least, a know-little.
          Your “Toot toot/ Beep Beep” is the best argument you can come up with — because you certainly haven’t produced even one name contradicting the 31,000 OISM co-signers. Have you? “Toot toot/ Beep Beep”, clown. Drop this silly nonsense and face the fact that you’ve got nothin’.
          And:
          I am prepared to stand by my claims that it is continuing to shrink… People here have claimed that they believe Arctic sea ice is growing. They have claimed that you would have to be so gullible to believe in the boogieman, or that you have not checked your facts to believe otherwise. Yet no one is prepared to stand by these claims.
          Then offer 5 – 1 odds like I did. How many times do you have to be told: I don’t bet on coin flips, and neither does anyone else here. As you can see, most folks here have more sense. You say everyone agrees that Arctic ice is growing. You even contradict yourself.
          And the chart I linked to above shows that NH ice cover is rising. That’s reality; you should try it some time.
          Finally, you ask:
          Why not say the ice is going, but that will be a good thing?
          I’ve written that many times here: if Arctic ice disappears the North West Passage will be ice free, saving fuel and reducing transit times, and with warmer latitudes precipitation will increase; more land will be opened to farming. It’s all good. Only in the crazed minds of the climate alarmist cult are those things bad.
          Finally:
          …feel free to take up my challenge.
          Your ‘challenge’ is that you’re a religious fanatic on “climate change”. I doubt if there’s any hope for you…
          …Mr. “Toot toot/Beep Beep”

      • RACookPE1978: “Yes, Arctic sea ice LOSSES (from today’s Arctic sea ice areas) help cool the planet… – 7 months of the year. The five summer months (April-May-June-July-August) some heat energy is indeed absorbed into the Arctic ocean.”
        Ok, so shrinking ice may or may not cool the planet. Not very helpful to asses if it would be a good or bad thing. I did not say that you said the NW passage would open, I said it would be of economic benefit if it did open. If there was an ice-free arctic summer the route would be viable, which would be a benefit. If the ice continues to shrink there will be an ice free summer eventually. If you think the ice is not shrinking, feel free to take up my challenge.

        • I did not say that you said the NW passage would open, I said it would be of economic benefit if it did open. If there was an ice-free arctic summer the route would be viable, which would be a benefit. If the ice continues to shrink there will be an ice free summer eventually. If you think the ice is not shrinking, feel free to take up my challenge.

          No. The extent of arctic sea ice in mid0summer prohibits travel across (between actually) the Canadian islands until mid-August. And, by August 12, the ponds of fresh water on top of the sea ice begin re-freezing each night. Minimum Arctic sea ice is two weeks in mid-September. It is only that short three week period – approximately early September to last week in September – when those passages are open.
          The passage across north Russia-Siberia is open much longer because the sea ice is blown/drifts AWAY form the Russian shores and TOWARDS the Canadian islands. Deepest, heaviest, longest-lived sea ice in across those islands where it gets trapped and not blown out past Iceland, Greenland and down the Denmark Strait.

      • RACookPE1978: ok. My point was that there are advantages to an ice free Arctic. Whether it is NW or NE passage is important, but not to my argument here. I think we can agree that reduced Arctic ice would have advantages as well as disadvantages.
        dbstealey. You seem to have strayed from another post. You fail to see that the argument for making Beep Beep the National Anthem based on a petition is the same as the one you are making. You fail to see that a petition signed by 0.3% of US graduates does not refute the surveys. You repeat the offer of a bet that I have told you several times I agree with you about, so I will not bet on it. That is why I said you had failed to follow the argument.
        If you believe ice is growing you should consider evens a good bet. I would consider it a good bet if someone offered me evens on a dice throw if they win only with a 6. I consider ice is shrinking, so I consider evens a good bet on my proposal. What odds would you require to bet? That gives a pretty good indication of what you consider the likely outcome will be. For example, if you require 2:1, it is a good indication you consider it about twice as likely that Arctic sea ice will shrink rather than grow over the next three years.
        You quoted me as saying “dbstealey and everyone else… I am sorry you were not able to follow the arguments.”
        This is duplicitous. The two parts of the quote come from different comments on different posts. Let me make it clear that the “following the argument” remark was addressed to you only, not to everyone else. This is an example of your deception. Reasoned argument is fine, but this sort of thing illustrates a willingness to twist the available data to show what you want.

        • “Toot toot/Beep Beep” (AKA: ‘seaice’), says:
          I think we can agree that reduced Arctic ice would have advantages as well as disadvantages.
          Name those ‘disadvantages’. Other than the fact that the alarmist cult would be proved wrong once again.
          And:
          You seem to have strayed from another post.
          Is today your turn to be fixated on my comments? Did you clear that with your pal Chris? ☺
          seaice sez:
          …a petition signed by 0.3% of US graduates does not refute the surveys.
          Oh, really? Could it be that the rest weren’t asked? Out of everyone who was asked, the overwhelming majority supports the OISM conclusions. And name your petition, ‘seaice’. Show us the petition that contradicts the OISM’s 31,000+ co-signers. Show us your “surveys” that refute anything in the OISM statement. Because that was the challenge, which you still fail.
          Next, ‘seaice’ deflects to this prediction:
          I consider ice is shrinking…
          Well, fine. I won’t make a big deal by quoting your own words that contradict that statement, I’ll just remind you once again that I did not make any predictions. I wrote that Arctic ice (heh, that ‘ice’ thing always makes me chuckle) has been rising. Ice is rising right up to November 2015. But you impotenly tried to fabricate that into a prediction, I suppose to justify your own nutty belief that you can divine the future.
          Give me good odds, ‘seaice’, and I’ll fade your future prediction simply on the basis of a sound bet. But as I’ve tried (but sadly, failed) to teach you: betting on a coin flip is stupid. I am not stupid. But you want to bet on a coin flip! Even Vegas won’t take even odds on that. Neither will I. And in case it’s not clear, I’m laughing at your desperate attempt to try and prove something by betting on the future. Could you be more lame? Try. I want to see if it’s possible. ☺
          Next, ‘seaice’, you say:
          Reasoned argument is fine, but this sort of thing illustrates a willingness to twist the available data to show what you want.
          That’s pure, 100.0% psychological projection there, ‘seaice’. May I demonstrate your own twisting? Thank you:
          You say:
          …a petition signed by 0.3% of US graduates does not refute the surveys.
          That shows your misunderstanding in believing that comparing a subset with the set is a false comparison. I’ve explained this in detail, to the extent that even you should have been able to understand. But apparently not. I’ll try once more:
          If, say, one group of engineers is convinced of a specific way to build a bridge, but another group of engineers contradicts them and says the bridge will fail, rational people do not compare one of those groups with the population of the entire country. Or even with all engineers. Rational folks compare the first subset with the second.
          But you are trying to compare 31,000 co-signers with a set of people who may not even be aware of the petition. Any rational person will compare the first group of engineers with the second group. You’re not being rational if you insist on comparing a specific subset with any unquantified set you manage to fabricate; a set that you cannot even show has been asked the question. You just assume that the ones who were never asked would support your belief. But most of that set might still be unaware of the question; for all you or I know, they would support OISM. See? We can only go by the statement, and anyone who contradicts it. You cannot arbitrarily throw in a bunch of others just because it supports your argument. Oh, wait …you’re an alarmist. Nevermind.
          That’s why it’s not legitimate to compare a subset with the whole set, like you keep trying to do (and you’re not fooling anyone: those “0.3%” talking points are posted at alarmist blogs, which emit the same nonsensical argument that you’re parroting here).
          Now, I’ve given you a list of more than 31,000 named engineers and professionals, all having degrees in the hard sciences (including more than 9,000 PhD’s). But you continue to try and weasel out of the challenge, which is to produce a comparable number, with similar educations, who cotradict the conclusions of the group I posted.
          Of course, you couldn’t possibly do that, you’re just part of a clique, and truth be told, not a very big one. So I kindly offered you a way out: produce only ten percent of the names I posted, with comparable educations, and I’ll concede. Otherwise, you lose.
          But you couldn’t find even 10%, could you? No. So I generously offered to concede, if you can name just one percent of that 31,000+, who dispute the OISM conclusions. Or you lose.
          But instead of posting just 300 names, or admitting that you’ve got nothin’, you deflected into your usual nonsense. Your argument has been demolished, but you keep digging your hole.
          You make it too easy, ‘seaice’. Are all the dunces on the alarmist side? Your comments make that highly likely, Mr. ‘Toot-toot/beep-beep’.

      • dbstealey says: “But you want to bet on a coin flip! Give me good odds, ‘seaice’, and I’ll fade your future prediction simply on the basis of a sound bet.”
        Good news! I have looked at the sea ice extent data for September, which approximates to the minimum area. Since 2004, if I had made this bet I would have only lost twice if 2016 and 2017 are the same as 2015. As a result of this I will offer you very generous 3:1 odds. Imagine – 3:1 odds in your favor on a coin toss! Las Vegas would give me those odds, as would pretty much anyone else. It would be crazy to turn down such an offer. Unless you think I am on to something?
        db says: “seaice sez:
        …a petition signed by 0.3% of US graduates does not refute the surveys.
        Oh, really? Could it be that the rest weren’t asked?”

        We do not know who was asked because the authors of the petition do not tell us. All we are told is the number that responded positively. I am not claiming that only 0.3% graduates support the statement in the petition. I am saying we simply do not know how many support it from the petition, except that it is at least 0.3%.
        “Out of everyone who was asked, the overwhelming majority supports the OISM conclusions.”
        Wrong. We do not know how many were asked because that data is not included in the petition. All we know is the number that responded positively. We do know that there are about 10,000,000 graduates that may have seen the petition.
        ” And name your petition, ‘seaice’. Show us the petition that contradicts the OISM’s 31,000+ co-signers. Show us your “surveys” that refute anything in the OISM statement. Because that was the challenge, which you still fail.”
        You helpfully posted a link to one that actually does record the number that were asked (>10,000), the number that responded (3,100) and the number of those responders that agreed with AGW (82%), and tells us what the population was (Earth Scientists) and how it was selected. In contrast your petition does not tell us how many were asked, how that population was selected, what proportion responded. All we know is that the population is said to be “science graduates” and the number that responded was 0.3% of this population.
        Gallup think that about 60% of college graduates believe AGW, which is in marked contrast to your “overwhelming majority” who you say believe the opposite. http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx
        Fortunately, as well as providing the link to a proper survey, you have also provided a good analogy.
        “If, say, one group of engineers is convinced of a specific way to build a bridge, but another group of engineers contradicts them and says the bridge will fail, rational people do not compare one of those groups with the population of the entire country. Or even with all engineers. Rational folks compare the first subset with the second.”
        I do not understand how you can fail to see that the Oregon petition is rather like comparing one of those groups with the population of the entire country. Using your analogy, we have two groups of engineers who disagree about how to build a bridge – call them method A or method B. We are trying to determine whether more experts agree with A or B.
        The survey that you provided the link to asks only [the equivalent of] engineers what they think. These are not all civil engineers, and most are not bridge building experts, but they are all engineers and have some expertise in this area. We know that 10,000 are asked, we know that 3,100 replied. We know 82% of the responders think method A is best. We also know that 79 of them are bridge building experts, and of these 95% think method A is best. This is a pretty good way to demonstrate that group B is very small.
        The petition on the other hand invites anyone with a science degree to reply only if they think method B is best. We do not know how many have seen the invitation, but we do know that 0.3% (30,000) of the people who might have seen it respond that it should be built by method B. We also know that only 35 of these were actually bridge building experts. We also know that about 1/3 were medics and about 1/3 were [the equivalent of] biologists. We do not know anything about the people who did not respond. This is a way to compare group A with something like the population of the entire country. It is not a good way, because we only ask for those that think B is best, so we have no idea how many think A is best. It is not the entire country, it is those with a science degree, but it contains about 10,000,000 people.
        You are telling me that the petition is evidence that a majority of experts think method B is best, and this refutes the results of the survey that shows the opposite. I ask you to look again without the blinkers. Would you really go with method B from this evidence?
        “I’ll just remind you once again that I did not make any predictions. “
        Yes you did. You predicted that there would still be sea ice remaining in 2019. That is the terms of the bet you offered. It is a prediction.
        “I suppose to justify your own nutty belief that you can divine the future.”
        You believe you can divine the future – you just did it there in your prediction that sea ice would not disappear by 2019. I guess that makes your beliefs nutty.
        “I’m laughing at your desperate attempt to try and prove something by betting on the future. Could you be more lame?” No more lame that you are by trying to prove something by offering a bet on the future.
        So take my bet at 3:1 odds.

        • @seaice:
          You keep wanting to make a bet based on what is essentially a coin flip. OK, you’re three-fifths of the way there. If you can offer 3 – 1 odds, you can surely make it 5 – 1 odds like I did. And to be clear, are you predicting that Arctic sea ice will begin rising again? If that’s what you’re saying, then I’d be willing to go based on the average of the past 10 years, if you believe next year will be lower. And I’d be willing to use either Sunshine Hours or Climate4you metrics. So on those terms, OK. I’ve posted examples of NSIDC’s “adjusting” the numbers, so I have no trust or confidence in any of them. Or in any governmental agency, for that matter. Because as your Gallup link says, the ‘global warming’ issue is politics. Bureaucrats have no choice but to toe the line of whoever is in office. And we know where our “community organizer” stands. Even you know more science that the president of the U.S. does! Be proud, seaice.
          Of course, the basic debate is about “global warming”, so any legitimate wager would concern only global ice cover. But you seem so anxious to prove whatever it is you’re trying to prove that I’ll give you the pleasure, and fade you. But I draw the line at giving healthy young men with cardboard signs at intersections free money. I don’t feel as sorry for them.
          Next, I don’t think you read your Gallup link. A headline:
          The Most Knowledgeable Are the Least Likely to Blame Humans
          And:
          …those with the highest level of knowledge — those saying they understand the global warming issue very well — are the least likely to believe global warming is the result of pollution from human activities.
          Based on your desperation to make a bet on future ice cover, I’ll assume you’re not in Gallup’s ‘least likely’ group.
          Next, you are also part of a very, shall we say, ‘deluded’ clique that desperately wants to believe in John Cook’s “97%” bogosity. That statistical nonsense started this debate over scientific ‘consensus’, and who believes what. I’ve read the links that appear when you put “97%” into the WUWT search box. Clearly you haven’t, because the articles and comments demolish that errant stupidity. The fact that you cannot understand a simple concept like comparing subsets of named individuals rather than a subset compared to everyone, whether they were asked or not — or even whether they knew about the issue — displays muddled thinking.
          It’s this simple: you cannot produce the names of anywhere near the number of names posted online of the 31,000+ OISM co-signers. All you are doing is pointlessly arguing …what, exactly? That you believe there are more scientists and engineers who disagree, but you cannot identify them? You take “…but what if” to a whole new level.
          Since I cannot seem to pop the fantasy bubble you exist in, I suggest that you go to the right sidebar here, and click on ‘William Briggs’. He is a PhD Statistician who has thoroughly debunked the idea that comparing a subset with an entire set is nonsense. Please go and argue with him, because apparently I can’t get through impenetrable true belief.
          Finally, just to set the record straight, when you say:
          You believe you can divine the future – you just did it there in your prediction that sea ice would not disappear by 2019. I guess that makes your beliefs nutty.
          I point out once again that I responded to your pal Chris, who would not back up his claim that Arctic ice would be gone by 2019. I never suggested that date, I merely responded to Chris with a wager that the Arctic would not be ice free by then — which ignited your constant demands that I must accept you own carefully manufactured and arbitrary bet.
          This wager silliness could have ended if Chris took the bet. But Chris skedaddled when I offered to fade him. Then you took over, and Chris hasn’t been seen since. But I can handle a dozen tag teams like you two, so have at it. I’m retired, and just having some fun with True Believers in the “dangerous man-made global warming” hoax. What’s your excuse?

          • dbstealey

            I point out once again that I responded to your pal Chris, who would not back up his claim that Arctic ice would be gone by 2019. I never suggested that date, I merely responded to Chris with a wager that the Arctic would not be ice free by then — which ignited your constant demands that I must accept you own carefully manufactured and arbitrary bet.

            DBStealey: I would caution you to require BOTH a specific date range in 2019 when Arctic sea ice is supposed to “disappear” … It has (on average) reached its yearly minimum between Sept 6 and Sept 21 AND a specific “value” for what is going to be considered “loss of all Arctic sea ice”. Now, you and I, being college-taught engineering and science types, would agree “0.0” is = “loss of all Arctic sea ice” .
            But!
            The CAGW catastrologists now scared of “losing all Arctic Sea ice” have recently expanded their defintion of “zero” to be as large as 1.0 million square kilometers (an area equal 1/2 the size of Greenland, just slightly smaller than all of Hudson Bay or the Bering Sea). Thus, define – ahead of any bet! – what “zero” is going to be for their propaganda of “losing all arctic sea ice”.
            100,000 square kilometers?
            10,000 square kilometers?
            Does this scary “loss of all sea ice” need to be in areas where the sunlight is actually shining? After all, if sea ice is “below average” during a day when there is no sunlight, there can be no heating of the Arctic Ocean, and the world is merely cooling more all the faster the more Arctic sea ice is lost.

          • RACook,
            Good point. We’ll make it for the average of the entire year, for both Chris’s and seaice’s dates. Anyway, Chris has already folded, and seaice will just move the goal posts.
            As for Chris believing that NSIDC or any other bureaucracy is being straight with the public, they only need to look at the links I’ve posted showing their “adjustments”, which always go in the most alarming direction.

          • Oh, I would be just a bit easier: Say,Both the NSIDC (US gov, obviously) and Cryosphere (Univ of Illinois) must have at least three consecutive days in June, July OR August of less than 100,000 square kilometers of sea ice extent before the year 2020.”
            Makes it a bit more difficult for one bad satellite scan to blip up one time in one lab’s report, doesn’t it?

          • RACook,
            Yes, that sounds good. My acceptance of their proposals is subject to your suggestions being incorporated.
            But I expect tap-dancing to replace acceptance. Chris has already skedaddled, and ‘seaice’ is waffling.

      • dbstealey: You keep wanting to make a bet based on what is essentially a coin flip. OK, you’re three-fifths of the way there. If you can offer 3 – 1 odds, you can surely make it 5 – 1 odds like I did. And to be clear, are you predicting that Arctic sea ice will begin rising again?
        You have said it is a coin flip many times. That is 50:50 odds. 3:1 odds in your favor should be 3 times better than you think you need, giving you an expected return of 3 times your stake. Demanding 5 times is just greedy. As an aside, your offer was a completely different bet, so the odds you offered have no relevance. To illustrate, say you offered a 100:1 bet the sun will rise tomorrow. I would turn it down. If I offered you an evens bet on a coin toss, it would make no sense for you to demand 100:1 odds because you had offered those odds on the sun rising. So no, 3:1 is my offer, and a very good one it is.
        I will state the terms yet again. The average of the Arctic sea ice area (>15% coverage) minima over the next 3 years will be less than the average of the Arctic sea ice mimima over the last 3 years. That is, the average of the minimum area covered by at least 15% ice in the arctic in 2016, 2017 and 2018 will be less than the average of 2013, 2014, 2015. If that is the case, I win. If the average of the next three years is larger than the last three years, you win. I have stated these terms clearly several times. The sea ice extent is published by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, as shown on the “sea ice” page here on WUWT. The sea ice minimum area is a single figure that leaves no room for interpretation or argument.
        If Anthony Watts is prepared to invigilate, I am happy to send my stake to him to hold onto until the end of Sept 2018, by which time the winner will have been determined, as long as you do the same.
        You have apparently not read my comments on the surveys vs petition. I answer all your objections, but you do not respond with anything sensible. That is why a bet is the only way to establish if you have confidence in your utterances. Everyone can see if you have the confidence to back up your assertion that it is a coin toss. Requiring 3:1 odds already says you do not have very much confidence.
        One simple point you may be able to focus on. How many people were asked in the Oregon petition, and how do you know? If you can answer those simple questions, I will listen to what you have to say. If not, the Oregon Petition can tell us very little.

        • Mr. ‘Toot toot/Beep Beep’ (AKA: ‘seaice’), says:
          You have said it is a coin flip many times. That is 50:50 odds. 3:1 odds in your favor should be 3 times better than you think you need, giving you an expected return of 3 times your stake.
          Now you’re beginning to understand. Only a fool would take an even bet like that on the future. And if you can give 3 – 1 odds, you can give 5 – 1 odds like I did. And you say I’m greedy. I originally offered to settle via Long Bets. That would allow me to do a little better than break even, after the tax deduction. Less than 5 – 1 and you’re barking up the wrong tree. It wouldn’t be the first itme.
          And:
          …3:1 is my offer, and a very good one it is.
          Just not good enough. You’ve become fixated on wagering. Planet Earth is proving you to be flat wrong, so I asssume you’re at least somewhat demented. If you’re crazy enough to offer 3 to 1, then you’re crazy enough to offer 5 to 1. Or not, I don’t care, because it is clear you are attempting to fabricate this in a way that is in your favor. You wouldn’t take my offer, so why should I take yours? You can make the same offer on Long Bets.
          And the average “minima”? No, the average of the past 10 years will do just fine. Either the trend is rising, flat, or it is falling. The rest as stipulated per RACook’s observations that the goal posts are being moved to where 1 million km is considered “ice free”. As RACook points out:
          The CAGW catastrologists now scared of “losing all Arctic Sea ice” have recently expanded their defintion of “zero” to be as large as 1.0 million square kilometers (an area equal 1/2 the size of Greenland, just slightly smaller than all of Hudson Bay or the Bering Sea). Thus, define – ahead of any bet! – what “zero” is going to be for their propaganda of “losing all arctic sea ice”.
          As usual, your side is constantly moving the goal posts when nature doesn’t cooperate with your beliefs. So, no Orwell language allowed: ‘ice free’ means exactly that. No fudging. No misrepresenting. No word games. The definition is ICE FREE. Those words are unambiguous. Of course, maybe you really meant “ice free” all along. In that case, you’re a stand-up guy.
          Next, I doubt that Anthony will be any part of this, as he has made that clear in the past. And here, let me fix your timidity:
          Requiring Offering 3:1 odds already says you do not have very much confidence.
          There. Fixed it for you. Your 3 – 1 offer is too timid.
          And finally:
          …the Oregon Petition can tell us very little.
          It tells us one essential fact: that there are far more named scientists and engineers who co-signed that statement than you have ever been able to find who contradict it. After almost twenty years, you’ve had ample time to get enough signatures that contradict it — IF you could.
          But you can’t. All you can do is tap-dance around that central fact. So as usual, you’ve got nothin’.

      • Face it dbstealey, you have been totally exposed here. You do not have the confidence to back up your stated beliefs. You can post jpg’s till you are blue in the face, but you won’t stand by your statements. You say Earth is refuting my claims, yet you won’t stand by your own claims. You no more think the Arctic sea ice is growing than you think oranges are blue.
        As usual, your side is constantly moving the goal posts…” My goal posts have remained exactly where they were when I made the original offer. Arctic sea ice minimum extent will be less over the next three years than it was over the last three years.
        You have said several times that the sea ice extent was growing or recovering. It is impossible to avoid the fact that the trend has been down since 1979. You have said so youself- describing it as a see-saw. If it shrinks over the next 3 years, the ice ain’t growing. If the ice is growing, that means this trend has reversed. You backed off that when challenged, and said it was 50:50 (a coin toss) if it was going to grow or shrink, so you were not prepared to accept evens. You then backed off even further and now say you won’t take 3:1 odds, which is an extremely good offer on a coin toss. Your current position is that you need 5:1, indicating it is about 5 times more likely to shrink than to grow! If the ice is growing you should be offering me odds in my favor. Sure looks to me that you think the downward trend is still going on!
        I originally offered to settle via Long Bets. That would allow me to do a little better than break even, after the tax deduction. Less than 5 – 1 and you’re barking up the wrong tree.
        Actually I originally offered resolution via Long Bets. Unlike you I have done my research. They say “Long Bets odds are always even, and the result is always win/lose (no partial wins).” So no 3:1 or 5:1 via that route. Also, all bets go to charity -you don’t get to keep any of your winnings. If you say you will accept on these terms I am very happy to proceed.
        And if you can give 3 – 1 odds, you can give 5 – 1 odds like I did. And you say I’m greedy. Why should it follow that if I can offer 3:1 I can offer 5:1? That is nonesense. Try it at Vegas and see how far you get. You said it was a coin toss, which is 1:1. Yet you will still not take 3:1 odds. That indicates to me that you don’t think it is coin toss, but the ice is much more likely to shrink.
        Sea ice minimum was the offer- it is a single, well defined value widely reported and leaves no scope for interpretation or argument.
        I think you are probably lacing up your tap-dancing shoes right now, ready to dance along and post something about ice free arctic which was never a part of my offer. Face it – you don’t think the Arctic sea ice is growing.
        To make it absolutely clear, I don’t think the Arctic will be ice free by any definition by 2019 or 2020. I have said it before and I have now said it again. We do not disgree on this. I think the Arctic sea ice is shrinking. You say you think it is growing. Yet you refuse to stand by that claim even at 3:1.
        I win, you lose.
        On the Oregon petition, I asked a couple of simple questions. How many were asked in order to get 30,000 signatures, and how do you know? You have failed to answer. Do you think it doesn’t matter how many were asked?

        • A.C. ‘seaice’,
          Face it, Mr. ‘Toot toot/Beep Beep’, you do not have the confidence to go by average “ice” (heh, ‘ice’) cover. Instead, you cherry-picked “minimum” instead of “average”. I’m not sure why you limit your risk to only “minimum” extent, but there is certainly a self-serving reason. Your side is constantly moving the goal posts, this time to “minimum”. Would you like to make that “maximum” extent? If you wonder why I’m laughing at you, that’s one reason. Honesty is not in you.
          Next:
          You no more think the Arctic sea ice is growing than you think oranges are blue.
          What?? You believe you can divine what other people are thinking? As I’ve suggested when you do that: go to Las Vegas and make your fortune! You won’t of course, because you’re wrong here, and you’ve been consistently wrong in the past, and Planet Earth is making a fool of you and the entire “climate change” cult right now. As I’ve also pointed out: Arctic ice has been growing for the past several years. I did not make a prediction that it will continue to grow, despite all your wild-eyed arm waving and demands that I must take your self-serving wager. You wouldn’t take mine, so you can just go pound sand.
          Next:
          It is impossible to avoid the fact that the trend has been down since 1979.
          Ah. It’s 1979 now, is it? Why 1979? We know that the Arctic has been ice-free before that. And we know that the alarmist cult grasped at the natural dip in Arctic ice that began after year 2000 like a drowning man grasps at a toothpick. So why 1979? That’s just an example of you moving the goal posts again. If you want to go back, we can show that the Arctic has been ice-free. So you cherry-picked that one particular year. let’s pick the longest time frame we’ve got instead. You will find that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening now.
          Next:
          Actually I originally offered resolution via Long Bets.
          “Originally?” Where and when? Linky, please.
          As I explained before, and which you ignored: You need to give odds especially when the proceeds all go to charity. If I make a wager that is paid to charity, I need to have a sizeable deduction that offsets what I’m forfeiting so that after taxes, I’ll come out with money in pocket. So, 5 – 1 odds (and no “minimum”; average sea ice extent, if you please. The alternative for you is noted above). If you can give 3 – 1 odds, you can give 5 – 1 odds like I did. Take it or leave it.
          But let’s get real here: you will never offer a fair wager based on the average increase or decrease of Arctic sea ice. Not even at 3 – 1 odds, much less even odds. You’re just trying to stack the deck, but I am not nearly as stupid as you hoped. There will never be any bet over “minimum” ice extent, or using NSIDC or any other government bureaucracy as a benchmark, or average since “1979”, or any of the other deck-stacking shenanigans that you’re hoping to put into your scam bet. That sort of dishonesty only appeals to people that Elmer Gantry would target, and I’m not one of them. Good luck finding a credulous mark, though. They say there’s one born every minute.
          Next:
          Sea ice minimum was the offer- it is a single, well defined value widely reported and leaves no scope for interpretation or argument.
          Were you born a fool, or did you work at it? There is massive interpretation regarding “minimum”. As RACook tutored you, the definition of “minimum” is regularly changed (AKA: ‘moving the goal posts’ again). No wonder that appeals to you. So listen up: “no sea ice” means exactly that. “No sea ice” doesn’t mean “1,000,000 km” of ice. No wonder you’re so frantic to make that bet! But as I’ve noticed, honesty is not in you.
          And:
          Face it – you don’t think the Arctic sea ice is growing.
          Ah, more mind reading. I am really enjoying this total deconstruction of a cultist. Yes, I do think Arctic ice has been growing since its low around 2006-7. But expecting that trend to continue is different from predicting it; a distinction that you never seem to understand. And I note that what you say ‘I think’ is contradicted… by you: (“…you don’t think Arctic sea ice is growing” and: “…you think it is growing”). Do you make these things up as you go along? You’re hardly in a position to know what others think, when you can’t even think straight youself.
          I think the Arctic sea ice is shrinking. You say you think it is growing.
          Well, there you go. But it does not follow that “I win, you lose”. That is an impotent statement if I’ve ever seen one — and I’ve seen plenty from you, Mr. Anonymous.
          Finally:
          On the Oregon petition, I asked a couple of simple questions.
          But you NEVER answer the one question that puts everything in perspective: how many comparable scientists and engineers can you name who contradict the OISM statement, which was co-signed by more than 31,000 professionals, including more than 9,000 PhD’s?
          So far, you haven’t named a single one! I doubt that you can name a dozen of them. Less polite commenters would laugh in your face at that gigantic FAIL.
          Keep ’em coming, Toot-toot/Beep-beep. Set ’em up, and I’ll knock ’em down for you. Easy peasy. ☺

      • Dbstealey: You won’t take my bet on sea ice minimum, even at odds of 3:1 in your favor. I will let everyone draw their own conclusion about whether you think the ice is growing or not.
        You said:
        And the average “minima”? No, the average of the past 10 years will do just fine. Either the trend is rising, flat, or it is falling.
        then I’d be willing to go based on the average of the past 10 years, if you believe next year will be lower. And I’d be willing to use either Sunshine Hours or Climate4you metrics. So on those terms, OK.
        Would you like to make that “maximum” extent? If you wonder why I’m laughing at you, that’s one reason. Honesty is not in you.

        OK then dbstealey. Lets do it on your terms. Use data from climate4you for month of maximum extent (March) over the last 10 years (2006-2015). If the trend is down, I win. If the trend is up, you win. No need for coin tosses. We can decide straight away. Better get your dancing shoes on.
        Seaice: Actually I originally offered resolution via Long Bets.
        Db: “Originally?” Where and when? Linky, please.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/13/manufactured-panic-projected-antarctic-ice-shelf-melting-may-surpass-intensities-associated-with-ice-shelf-collapse/
        See my post at 19 Oct 3:02am for the original terms (exactly the same as they are now – no goalpost shifting at all) and Oct 20 2:49 for the long bets suggestion as follows:
        Seaice: “I will bet on the terms I stated previously. So how about it? If you think ice is growing, why not take the terms of my bet? We can resolve it in 3 years. I am prepared to wait that long. We can use the longbets .org platform to ensure fair play.
        Serious offer, with mechanism to undertake it. How about it? Do you have the cojones, or are you chicken?”

        You might want to look at all those pictures of chickens you posted back then.
        At longbets you cannot have different odds. All bets are evens. If I put it on longbets it will have to be at evens.
        Oregon petition: you cannot answer the question because the information is not available. Without the information on numbers asked, the petition is of very limited value. In fact, about the same as the Beep Beep/ Toot Toot petition. You failed to get that last time. Can you name 300 people that do not want Toot Toot / Beep Beep as National Anthem? No? Then by your reasoning it must be that the vast majority support such a measure.

        • Sure, climate4you is fine. Just no government bureaucracies, as I stipulated. Average sea ice for the past 10 years, per the chart I’ve posted regularly. And 5 – 1 odds as I offered. Other details per RACook. And whatever else I may think of.
          And re this:
          Without the information on numbers asked, the petition is of very limited value.
          Wrong as usual, that information has tremendous value in that it is co-signed by tens of thousands of professionals who are not afraid to put their names on that statement. It also has much value because it gives clarity to the false alarmist claims of “consensus”. Your side never had any consensus. Not that consensus means much in science, but your claims have been falsified by the really huge number of OISM co-signers. All you’ve got to counter that is… your opinion. Not your own numbers, because you haven’t posted a single named individual who contradicts the OISM statement. So you’ve lost that argument, 31,000 – 0.
          Furthermore, you won’t take my suggestion to ask Dr. Briggs (Statistician to the Stars!) what he thinks of your trying to compare a group with every other scientist and engineer on the planet. Or even in the country. I’ve pointed out that’s just deflection, but you keep digging your hole deeper. Go ask Briggs. Or find a dozen sci/eng who contradict OISM in writing. I’ll wait here, I’m retired and have nothing else to do except provide care for a disabled person here, so take your time…
          If you could provide a reasonable number of contrary opinions by professionals who signed their names, say half, you would have an argument. And you would have an equal argument if you found 31,000 of them. If you found more than OISM has, you would have bragging rights that you won the consensus argument. But you keep digging you hole deeper with your “97%” nonsense (which started it), and now you’re fixated on what is clearly a failed argument. You lost; suck it up.
          You’ve had nearly 20 years to come up with your own statement contradicting the OISM statement. But no one ever has, and I know why: because there are not anywhere near 31,000 sci/eng’s in the country who would ever sign something like that. So your side hides out, just like you hide out from any fair, moderated, public debate on your “MMGW” scare. You know that if you had to produce numbers like the OISM numbers, your Emperor would be seen to be naked. Because really, you couldn’t find even 10% of the OISM’s numbers. You couldn’t even find one percent of their numbers! And I don’t think you can even find a dozen. A dozen, versus 31,000!
          No wonder you’re so fixated on wagers and bets. They are something you can manipulate. You can’t manipulate the OISM statement, or the fact that you cannot find even a handful of sci/eng’s to contradict it. Now we see the true “consensus”, and it was never your small clique of climate alarmists that you’re trying to support. In reality, that always has been a very small, self-serving clique. The OISM numbers prove it.

      • dbstealey. You will not back sea ice minimum area growing over the next three years, even at 3:1 odds in you favour. That speaks volumes. Since you have demonstrated a willingness to bet on other future events this cannot be a general distaste for betting. I interpret that as you not betting because you think you will lose.
        I have been totally consistent in my position. Yet you accuse me of tap-dancing around and shifting the goalposts. I have shifted nothing, as you will see if you follow my link to the original offer. It is you who has continually tried to shift the goalposts.
        That is over now. You will not take the bet. Unless you can provide a better explanation it seems obvious that the reason is you think it likely the sea ice minimum area will further reduce over the next three years. So we close the book and say that my position is the winner.
        Just as we say your position on no arctic ice-free summer by 2019 is the winner, since I will not take that bet.
        That is how betting works. Someone makes a prediction about some future event (often a sporting event), and offers odds on the outcome. You don’t take it if you think you will lose.
        If you want to suggest another different bet, then make your proposal. If not then this topic is done, with us both apparently agreeing that sea ice minimum area will likely reduce over the next 3 years.
        Furthermore, you won’t take my suggestion to ask Dr. Briggs (Statistician to the Stars!) what he thinks of your trying to compare a group with every other scientist and engineer on the planet.
        I propose another wager. We ask Dr Briggs if the Oregon Petition statistically proves that the majority of experts agree with the OISM statement and if the Oregon petition disproves the consensus surveys. Note I am not asking Dr Briggs to comment on the consensus surveys and papers directly, only on whether the Petition disproves them. I do not know Dr. Briggs, or if he will spend the time required to adjudicate on this one. I suggest that we include a fee in the request, to be paid by the loser. I would think $100 should be sufficient to persuade Dr. Briggs to spend the 5 minutes or so he would require to reach his conclusion. Then we can agree the sum for the bet separately, or we can have it just that Dr Briggs’ fee is paid as the stake.
        Given your confident assertions in these comments I presume you will not be requiring favourable odds for this one. If you are so confident that the petition debunks the consensus papers you will jump at this, using your own suggested expert.
        If I have mis-represented you position in my wording, please make it very clear what you think the petition does prove, so we can be precise in our submission to Dr Briggs.
        I have explained why the petition does not prove what you say it does, but you ignore my arguments. Let Dr Briggs decide who is right.

        • ‘seaice’ says:
          …even at 3:1 odds in you favour… I interpret that as you not betting because you think you will lose.
          As usual, your ‘interpretation’ is a mental fantasy. If I thought I would lose, then 1,000 – 1 odds couln’t get me to bet. I explained why I need 5 – 1, but since I’ve offered that to you and you skedaddled, your comment is just projection: you wouldn’t take my wager because you knew you would lose. So if you can lose at 3 – 1, you can lose at 5 – 1. It will just cost you a little more.
          Next:
          If you want to suggest another different bet…
          I already did, but you ran.
          Listen to yourself, ‘seaice’:
          You don’t take (the bet) if you think you will lose… I will not take that bet… That is how betting works… I will not take that bet… If you want to suggest another different bet… I propose another wager… we can agree the sum for the bet…
          seaice, here is some very good advice for you: get some help with your gambling addiction.
          Next, you say:
          I propose another wager. We ask Dr Briggs if the Oregon Petition… …&etc.
          You’re still tap-dancing around the fact that you have not posted the name of even one scientist or engineer who contradicts the OISM statement. Not one name! Your lame attempts to get around your abject failure are making you desperate for ways to save face, in particular with your endless wagers. That won’t work, Toot-toot. The only thing you can do is post the names of comparable individuals who say the OISM statement is wrong. Otherwise, it stands at… 31,487 to zero. You are the ‘zero’. How could you be less credible than zero? Either start posting names, or you lose. That’s where your gambling addiction is leading you.
          Think about what those 31,000 knowledgeable professionals are saying: the central bugaboo promoted by the alarmist cult, CO2, is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. I’ve been saying that for many years now, and all the available real world evidence supports that. But without CO2 to demonize, your gang has nothing; no “carbon” scare, and therefore no “Arctic ice disappearing” scare, no “Polar bears disapperaing” scare, no “vanishing glaciers” scare, etc., etc.
          So either you must demonize that harmless trace gas, or per the Scientific Method, you must admit that your “carbon” conjecture has been falsified by the real world. The choice is yours. You can be a climate alarmist, or an honest skeptic. If you want to be a skeptic, look for the reasons you were wrong about CO2, and everyone will try to help you. If you just look, you will see that the “carbon” hoax is a government scam, intended to lead to a carbon tax and more political power. That is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be spelled out for anyone. But if you won’t admit the obvious, you’re just digging your hole deeper. Because really, there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening. Actually, we’ve been enjoying a true “Goldilocks” climate for the past century.
          Face it: the alarmist crowd has been flat wrong all along. CO2 is not only harmless; more is better. Global warming is good, not bad. But you are so desperate to rescue your failed conjecture that you’ve been arguing incessantly over silly wagers, when everyone can see that your CO2=cAGW scare has failed miserably. No wager can possibly rescue that monumental blunder. If you were honest, you would admit you were wrong. Instead, you will “Say Anything” to avoid admitting it.
          So by all means, continue digging the hole you’re in. I’ve tried to tell you that you’re not smart enought o corner me in any of your ploys. The main difference between us is this: if I was wrong (and like everyone I’ve been wrong before), I would admit it way before it got to the sorry situation you find yourself in now.
          Your original premise was wrong, and thus everything that followed (like Arcitc ice disappearing) is wrong as well. You’ve made yourself into an amusing plaything for skeptics to bat around. I like to pull the wings off flies, too. ☺
          If you ever decide to admit that your original conjecture was wrong; that dangerous AGW is not occurring, you will be on the road to redemption.
          And get some help for that gambling addiction of yours. It’s getting worse by the day.

      • dbstealey. You say Oregon petition shows a majority of experts agree with the OISM statement. I explain to you why this is not true. You ignore my arguments and just continue to make the same invalid claim over and over again. I offer a mechanism using your suggested expert and you run away again. And you turn down free money into the bargain. Face it, you will not accept arbitration from an expert because you think you will lose, just like in the sea ice minimum case.
        You have not offered another bet. Be precise about the terms and what point you think it makes like I did.
        I have seen the phrase “holding his feet to the fire” on these pages quite bit. I am holding your feet to the fire.

        • ‘seaice’ says:
          …Oregon petition shows a majority of experts agree with the OISM statement. I explain to you why this is not true.
          No, you give your own opinion of why you don’t want to accept reality. The truth is not in you. What you don’t do — what you never do — is post the names of scientists and engineers who contradict the OISM’s statement. If it’s not true, there should be plenty of people who say it’s not true. But you can’t even come up with one name!
          You’ve had almost twenty years to come up with some names. But you can’t find 10% of the OISM’s 31,000+ that disagree. You can’t even find 1% who contradict the OISM’s statement. Heck, you couldn’t even come up with a dozen (12) names! But you continue to preposterously argue that the OISM’s 31,000+ experts is a meaningless number. If that was true, then organizations wouldn’t pay big money to pollsters.
          So, who designated you the expert on what is ‘true’? In fact, you’re just squirming on the hook, trying to deflect from the fact that you can’t find people who have contradicted the OISM statement in writing. Will you never stop tap-dancing around that failure? If it were not for your psychological projection, your comments would look like this: (” … “).
          And:
          … you will not accept arbitration from an expert because you think you will lose
          Look, puppy, you refused to take my original wager (which I made for fun, not realizing it would raise all the issues with surrounding gambling addiction). So obviously: you knew that you would lose: QED. And you would have, we both know that. Otherwise, you would have faded me.
          Also, where did I ‘turn down free money’? If it’s free, just send it! Thanx. I never turn down free money. ☺
          Next:
          You have not offered another bet.
          No kidding. I’m already feeling guilty for igniting the gambling addiction that is troubling you now. My apologies, I didn’t know it was that bad. You need to get professional help, stat! Too many lives have been destroyed by gambling, yours could be next. So get help, before it’s too late.
          Finally:
          I am holding your feet to the fire.
          LOLOL!! Please stop it! My sides are hurting! Your impotent statements are giving me fits of giggles!
          So, to recap: you plainly lost the OISM debate, that’s a given. And your gambling addiction is merely a way of trying to salvage an argument based on an unknown future event. Those positions demonstrate the lack of credibility in the alarmists’ camp: you have nothing contradicting 31,000+ co-signers, and you cannot show that current observations are either unusual or unprecedented. No wonder no alarmist scientist is willing to take part in a fair, moderated, public debate. Like your failed arguments, their arguments would also be completely demolished.
          Now, because of global warming it’s getting cold in here. Could you move that fire a little closer to my feet? Thanx. ☺

      • I have confidence that the expert will agree with me, so I am prepared to offfer to pay the fee if he does not. You have no such confidence, since you are not prepared to do the same. You just continue to repeat your opinion. So I win again, ‘cos all you have is your opinion, but I have the confidence an expert will agree with me.
        Look, puppy, you refused to take my original wager (which I made for fun, not realizing it would raise all the issues with surrounding gambling addiction). So obviously: you knew that you would lose: QED Why do you keep repeating this when I have said several times that I agree entirely with the statement you made. We all agree that the Arctic will not be ice-free by 2019.
        On sea ice and on the OISM petition I will quote your words back to you: you knew that you would lose: QED. And you would have, we both know that. Otherwise, you would have faded me.
        Yeah, I won’t take you bet because I thought I would lose. You won’t take my bet because you think you will lose. The only difference is that I am very happy to accept it whereas you keep squirming.

        • seaice sez:
          You won’t take my bet because you think you will lose.
          Wrong as usual. You mistakenly assume you know why I haven’t faded your bet. Here are the true reasons, by the numbers:
          1. You haven’t offered me 5 – 1 odds, like I generously did for you (or anyone who was interested).
          2. We have not decided on the parameters. I say averages must be compared; you say minimums.
          3. You have a very serious gambling addicition that you want me to enable.
          I didn’t realize you had such a serious addiction when I made my original offer to ‘Chris’. Now I understand why you jumped in with your own series of bets you want to make. In every comment you are consumed with making wagers. That clearly is the extent of your ‘authority’: if you were to win a bet (unlikely with me) you would a) feel vindicated, just like an alarmist feels vindicated when quoting John Cook’s preposterous ‘97%’ consensus. And b) your addiction would be reinforced, causing you to want to gamble even more. I would feel the same as if I was giving an alcoholic another drink.
          Next, I know my own opinion. You only presume you know. Who is the authority on my opinion? You? Really? Explain how that works…
          Finally, you’re part of a cult that has been 100.0% wrong from the get-go. You presume that human CO2 emissions cause global warming, and diminishing Arctic ice, and accelerating sea level rises, and all the other scares associated with human emissions.
          But you haven’t got a single verifiable, teastable, replicable measurement quantifying AGW. Not a single one. Therefore, all your scares are based on your personal beliefs, not on measurements. That isn’t any more scientific than John Cook’s ‘97%’ nonsense.
          It doesn’t matter if Arctic ice is rising, falling, or staying the same. Because you have not connected it with human activity in any credible way. That would require verifiable, replicable, empirical measurements, which you do not have.
          Now, go get some help for your gambling addiction.

      • Oh, it is surprising that you turn down 3:1 odds on something that you think you will win. Very peculiar, that is. It is more usual to back out because you think you will lose. If I were to offer you 3:1 odds that this site was hosted by Anthony Watts, or that the year is 2015, or you will get either a head or a tail in a coin toss, I presume you would turn it down because I did not offer 5:1? Senseless.
        You presume to know about my gambling habits. That is just tap-dancing around and evasion. I have almost no interest in gambling outside this series of comments.
        Please specify which averages you want to use. Is it annual? What time period? What data set?

        • seaice sez:
          “Blah, blah, &etc….”
          As I’ve said before, it’s 5 – 1 or go pound sand.
          Next:
          You presume to know about my gambling habits.
          It is obvious to the most casual observer that you have a serious gambling problem. Based on your comments, gambling is more important to you than anything else. Get help before it’s too late. It may already be too late for you.
          I have almost no interest in gambling…
          That is contradicted by your incessant fixation on arranging wagers. Youy are far more interested in gambling than anyone else. It clearly consumes you, and I’m laughing at your claim that this is the only place where your gambling addiction appears. Very peculiar, that is.
          Please specify which averages you want to use. Is it annual? What time period? What data set?
          See what I mean?

      • Remove the Arctic cyclone caused 2012 low [no one disputes the cause of that extreme outlier] and you will find that Arctic ice minima turned the corner in 2007. That 2015 is no higher than 2011 is not material. The fact that, 2012 excepted, no value is lower than 2007 is.

      • Tetris said: “That 2015 is no higher than 2011 is not material.”
        Incorrect. The starting point of this particular thread were oldseadog’ statement that since 2011, Arctic sea ice is recovering nicely. So my point is completely material.

      • Chris,
        You’ve always got lots of your own ‘BS’ opinions. I posted empirical facts, which trump the nonsense you’re always parroting. Try to break out of that bubble you’re in and look at what the real world is trying to tell you: you’re wrong.

      • dbstealey, WUWT for years has posted stories about the Arctic ice minimum. A commenter above said it was recovering from 2011, I showed that his statement was incorrect. You posted data from March – why I have no clue, since that does not relate to the point I made. Well, I do know – as usual, you look through the data for an entire year, and cherry pick the time that suits your story. That’s not empirical science – that’s cherry picking. But at least you are consistent, I’ll give you that.

        • Chris says:
          You posted data from March – why I have no clue, since that does not relate to the point I made.

          You say:
          you look through the data for an entire year, and cherry pick the time that suits your story.
          Wrong as always, I posted what I had saved in a folder. It refutes your claim that the post above doesn’t show the time of year.
          But I do agree with you when you admit that you ‘have no clue’. So now you move the goal posts as usual. Instead of “with time of year not indicated”, I then indicated the comparable time of year, so as usual you deflected onto something else. That is the only reason you keep arguing: moving the goal posts like that lets you tap-dance around the fact that you’ve been nailed with facts.
          Next, I vouch for my own comments, not others that are un-named and for all I know, either fabricated or misrepresented. And you say:
          2015, is tracking BELOW both 2013 and 2014
          Wrong, but I’ve stopped counting:
          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/iphone-anomaly-global-1.png
          As we see, global ice cover is strongly rebounding.
          And ARCTIC ice has been rising above its long term trend:
          http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1957.gif
          Going by your own ‘NSIDC’ maps, there is hardly any difference at all in the satellite record.
          So, Chris, you’re flat wrong as always. If you ever bust out of your bubble, you will see what the rest of us see: the whole “ice” scare is a bunch of alarmist nonsense. And maybe you should take seaice’s bet, since he’s contradicting you.

        • Chris says:
          I showed that his statement was incorrect.
          Yet you still won’t indicate what you’re referring to. And as I’ve explained, I had that .gif in a folder, so I used it to debunk your “time of year” nonsense by comparing two identical times of the year. So as usual you deflect…
          Your wild-eyed arm waving over “ice”” is probably the silliest ‘Chicken Little’ false alarm, among all your silly alarmist scares. Global ice cover is right at its long term average, so you cherry-pick the ‘Arctic’ because that end of the world happens to have had a small dip over a few years.
          Could you be any more incredible? Any more desperate? Even your pal ‘seaice’ disagrees with your nonsense.

      • db, posting different images to the ones I commented on is irrelevant to my point. You don’t have a PhD in the sciences, but you surely do in deflection. I comment on a comparison between a 1971 map and a 2015 image, you then post an image of 2006 and 2015. Bizarre. And not of minimum sea ice extant, which is the widely accepted data point used for comparison year to year. No, DB pulls data from March to make his case – which shows everyone how weak it is.

        • Chris,
          Wrong as usual. The links I post are debunking your “ice” scare, so they are very relevant. You just don’t like it because they show you’re wrong. And speaking of deflection, you’re posting links that misrepresent the issue, so that’s just your projection showing.
          Next, you say:
          “I comment on a comparison between a 1971 map and a 2015 image, you then post an image of 2006 and 2015.”
          I posted the 2006 ice pic to show you (and everyone else) that you’re wrong: the Arctic has been gaining ice since then. Here’s another view:
          http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-12-02-53-45.png
          And this chart is by one of the world’s foremost ice experts:
          http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1957.gif
          …while you post links to the government’s propaganda outlet, Arctic Sea Ice News, LOL!
          Those bureaucrats never have anything but scare stories. Even when they (rarely) mention the Antarctic, it’s only for more scare stories; this time scaring folks like Chris over the “ozone hole”. I remember that same scare from the early ’70’s. It keeps coming back, like Zombie Ozone. Still scared, Chris? If you are, I’m amused.

      • db – you call me wild eyed. That’s pretty funny coming from a guy who basically lives on WUWT and other skeptic blogs. Are you at 50,000 posts yet? You can’t be that far away, at your rate of 25 or more per day.

        • ‘Wild-Eyed Chris’ says:
          …at your rate of 25 or more per day.
          Oh really? I’m not keeping count, but I love it that you are. You’re fixated on my comments! Good. Maybe you’ll learn something worthwhile.
          And what other ‘skeptic blogs’ are you referring to? This is where I comment, almost exclusively. And I’m retired and taking care of a disabled wife, so I have the time. What’s your excuse, Chris? Is someone paying you to emit “ice” scares?
          Also, you have an irritating habit of posting your opinion, without providing any supporting links. That makes them mere assertions by you, nothing more.
          But I don’t blame you for deflecting again, Chris. You never did have a credible “ice” argument; best to cut your losses by posting about something else.
          [And when you have to steal the labels that apply to you (“deflecting”), you’ve run out of gas, pardner. Trot on back to Hotwhopper, or wherever you’re getting your misinformation from. You’re all out of talking points to parrot here.]

      • dbstealey,
        I’m using the site and data that WUWT uses. You call it government propaganda, but it’s apparently good enough so that WUWT uses it without complaint for their “guess the minimum” contest each year.
        Posting a picture about global sea ice is irrelevant to a discussion about Arctic ice. So is temperature data. Once again, deflection is all you’ve got, so you double down on that. Posting different graphs with data in no way relates to whether or not dwagtomis’ two graphs had dates. Again, deflection.

        • Chris says:
          I’m using the site and data that WUWT uses.
          WUWT reports what NSIDC reports. But neither WUWT nor I vouch for NSIDC’s accuracy. Do you?
          NSIDC is government propaganda. Their “adjustments” are not raw data. Only the naive and credulous take them at face value. They routinely “adjust” their charts to be more… convenient:
          http://oi28.tinypic.com/2co31gi.jpg
          http://oi40.tinypic.com/vnmhoo.jpg
          So believe their propaganda if you want, it only reflects your confirmation bias.
          And:
          Posting a picture about global sea ice is irrelevant to a discussion about Arctic ice.
          Only when it doesn’t show what you’re claiming. And:
          So is temperature data.
          Deflection much? Yep. All the time. You own deflection, iceboi.

      • dbstealey,
        No, I’m not following your posts – don’t flatter yourself. You are the one who posted on my comment, remember? I only read about 1/3 of the articles on WUWT. But in virtually every one, there are 5 or more comments by you. An average of 5 stories/day on WUWT x 5 comments = 25/day = 9000/year. A few years and that’s 25,000. Just basic math, db.
        As far as supporting links, gifs and jpgs aren’t supporting science, DB. In fact, you’ve posted stuff before – like the laughable chart that uses a greater than 100 degree Y axis to minimize the visual appearance of global temperature change – and when I asked you for the source, you said “I don’t remember.” That’s the extent of your supporting links!

        • Chris says:
          No, I’m not following your posts – don’t flatter yourself.
          LOLOL!! …as Chris follows my posts. ☺
          …in virtually every one, there are 5 or more comments by you… … &etc. You’ve put a lot of your personal time into following me, Chris. You should see someone about that fixation. Your stalking is getting weird.
          But it’s nice to know you’re counting my comments. I like having an entourage, even if it’s an entourage of one. As I patiently explained to you before, I’m retired and take care of my disabled wife, so schooling you gives me something to do in between chores. And you never answered my question: what’s your excuse?
          Next, you say:
          As far as supporting links, gifs and jpgs aren’t supporting science
          Of course they are. You’re just trying to cover up the fact that you’ve got nothin’ but misinformation, deflection, and true belief.
          Finally, you keep digging your hole ever deeper, saying that the…
          …chart that uses a greater than 100 degree Y axis to minimize the visual appearance of global temperature change…
          …is just like all those alarmist charts that show tenth and hundredth of a degree changes?
          Help me out here, Chris, I don’t know which one of the scores of charts I’ve posted that you’re talking about. And I might add that a central tactic of your alarmist/ice cult does exactly that: you claim you know past global T to within tenths and hundredths of a degree. How does that work, iceboi?
          And:
          That’s the extent of your supporting links!
          Oh, really? Since you’re so fixated on my comments, it must have taken you a lot of time to find even one that you could question, out of the hundreds I’ve posted. Go back and find that chart, whatever it is, and we can discuss it some more. Because as usual, you don’t say what you’re commenting about. But be sure to ignore the hundreds of other charts I’ve posted. You don’t want to look too foolish.

      • Phil, deflection is dbstealer’s standard MO. I posted a reply to someone (no db) who said that Arctic ice had recovered since 2011. dbstealer then chimed in with temperature data, global ice data, and attacked NSIDC data as being “government propaganda.” A master of deflection and tin foil hat behavior if I ever saw one. But at least dbstealer’s consistent.

        • Chris says:
          “dbstealer”? My, my. When you have no credible arguments — and you don’t — you stoop to pointless ad-homs?? That’s a reflection on you, Chris. Not on me. Or do you think otherwise? If so: explain.
          Since it is crystal clear that you are incapable of refuting anything I posted (except with your impotent name-calling), I guess by any reasonable measure I win this little debate. Particularly since you deflected from the ‘no Arctic ice by 2019’ problem you got yourself tangled up in. Tucking tail and skedaddling like that doesn’t impress the grownups here. You wouldn’t even come back after your “2019” fiasco. Now you appear with juvenile name-calling, but nothing substantive.
          Chris, you’re a chihuahua trying to run with the big dogs. Give it up, puppy, your lame arguments are too easy to demolish — as I’ve demonstrated many times by destroying yours using facts, evidence, and links; something you don’t seem to need. Assertions are about all you’ve got, aside from your schoolyard taunts.

      • dbstealey November 17, 2015 at 9:23 am
        It makes my point: NSIDC “adjusts” what it shows to the public.

        It’s a graph by Humlum not NSIDC.
        dbstealey November 16, 2015 at 10:14 am
        As we see, global ice cover is strongly rebounding.
        And ARCTIC ice has been rising above its long term trend:

        I was referring to this comment, the graph you posted was arctic temperature anomaly, which you show as increasing, not arctic seaice.
        Your claim of NSIDC ‘adjusting’ what it shows is false, as I’ve told you before NSIDC plots a 5-day moving average so the smoothing you see is expected in response to the daily fluctuations.

      • dbstealey,
        Good Lord, dbstealer was a typo. Are you really so insecure and hypersensitive that you must spend a full paragraph on that?
        No, you have not won the debate. You as usual tried to switch topics, trotting out graphs (not papers, just graphs without detailed sources) on temperature, global ice and on Arctic ice in mid March – nothing related to Arctic minimum ice. You tried to dismiss NSIDC data as government propaganda, even though it is used here on WUWT. Is RSS government propaganda as well? Pretty much all the temperature and ice data sets are put out by governments, so your government rant makes little to no sense.
        Regarding your so called 2019 fiasco, that’s another bogus claim. You assigned to me the average of two dates mentioned by Gore in papers about when the Arctic ice minimum reaching 0. I never stated that I believed in those dates – repeat, those were not the dates I believe. I gave you my date, and offered you a bet. Since you think Arctic ice is recovering, that bet should’ve been a no brainer. But you didn’t take it – you’re basically all talk and no action. All hat and no cattle.
        Lastly, your comment on chihuahas and big dogs. You think you are a big dog???? Funny stuff. 0 published papers and thousands of blog posts makes you a big dog – riiiiightttttt.

        • Chris,
          I had thought about the typo excuse, all during my response. But those letters are not together, and you don’t make typos like that. And you don’t read what you write? Sure.
          I was amused, not upset as you seem to think. Your “”typo”” just shows you’ve got nothin’. So I don’t blame you for being upset; you’re on the side of a losing argument, and there’s no way out without verifiable facts and evidence — the things you never have.
          Next, regarding your attempt to defend NSIDC: you ignored the liknks I provided showing how they “adjust” the record — and always in a way that supports their ‘climate change’ scare. But all you’ve got to defend them are your usual assertions, so you lose again.
          You also assert that I didn’t connect the NSIDC with “ice” (I always have to chuckle at that word). But I had posted examples showing the NSIDC “adjusts” what it feeds to the public, therefore it is propaganda. And so what if WUWT posts a link to them? It also posts a link to ‘skepticalscience’, and other alarmist blogs for readers’ reference. This site is not vouching for NSIDC. The rest of your mini-rant is nothing but your opinion-based assertions. You posted no verifiable facts, therefore your comment is dismissed due to eco-religious bias. Once again, you’ve got nothin’.
          So yes, I’ve demolished your argument in this little debate. But don’t take my word for it. That’s what Planet Earth is telling you: your “ice” scare is nonsense. And I don’t think Arctic ice will be gone by 2019, or any time during the lifetime of any reader here. Don’t forget: you brought up the ‘2019’ scare. heh
          Finally, I didn’t say I’m the big dog here (although compared with the alarmist cult and you, there’s no contest). I said you are a chihuahua by comparison to the big dogs, all of them. You just argue by assertion, giving your opinions as if they mean something. They don’t, puppy. You’re on the side that is pushing the ‘DAGW’ conjecture, thus you have the onus of producing proof, or at least, of producing reasonable supporting evidence. But you can’t; all you have are your opinions. That isn’t enough. So you lose. This is science, not rhetoric.
          As I’ve said here and elsewhere for many years: what is being observed is simply natural climate variability. There is nothing either unusual, or unprecedented happening. That goes back to the Null Hypothesis: the onus is on anyone claiming that what is observed is not completely natural to falsify that hyposthesis. As Dr. Roy Spencer has said, no one has ever falsified the climate Null Hypothesis.
          But you could be the first! Because now you now get a chance to try, and if you do, you will be able to cash in! Just go here and apply. You can use $100,000, no?
          The ball is now squarely in your court, puppy. This is where the rubber meets the road. It all comes down to the question of whether observations show DAGW (including the risible “ice” scare), or whether you cannot back up your beliefs. So go for it. I’ll watch with my usual amusement. I will be doubly amused when you deflect, and come up with more excuses about why you can’t, or won’t, accept McKitrick’s challenge.
          As usual, if you are successful you win the debate! But if you’re not, and especially if you deflect, you lose. Again. But hey, I’m rootin’ for ya, puppy! You really need a win for once. ☺

      • dbstealey,
        Once again, more deflection. You say that WUWT has links to Skeptical Science as well as NSIDC. Complete apples and oranges comparison – your specialty. WUWT uses NSIDC for their annual predict the minimum ice contest. That is completely different than showing links to AGW sites and other skeptical sites.
        You say “You’re on the side that is pushing the ‘DAGW’ conjecture, thus you have the onus of producing proof, or at least, of producing reasonable supporting evidence. But you can’t; all you have are your opinions. That isn’t enough. So you lose. This is science, not rhetoric.”
        Wrong. The world’s scientific bodies have stated that AGW is real, it has been proven. I (or they) don’t have to do anything. The world is moving forward on action. if you and skeptics don’t believe in their conclusion, that’s fine. But governments and the private sector are moving forward on action.

        • Chris says:
          The world’s scientific bodies have stated that AGW is real, it has been proven.
          “AGW is real, it has been proven” is simply wrong, and it makes as little sense as everything else Chris writes.
          If there is “proof” of AGW as Chris asserts, then why is he incapable of producing a simple measurement quantifying the degree of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions? Because no such measurements exist, that’s why.
          There are no empirical, testable, replicable measurements of AGW that are widely agreed to by the scientific community. Guesstimates of the climate sensitivity number (which is directly related to AGW) range from 6ºC+, down to 0.00ºC., and everything in between.
          That flatly contradicts Chris’ false assertion that AGW has been “proven”. If AGW had been “proven” there would be no more “guesstimates”. Everyone would agree on the proven measurement.
          But since AGW has ipso facto not been proven, the “world’s scientific bodies” are either:
          a) totally confused about the meaning of the Scientific Method, and about scientific skepticism, and about the climate Null Hypothesis, and Occam’s Razor, or…
          b) they have been bought and paid for, as Prof. Richard Lindzen documents.
          In science it is almost impossible to get thousands of different scientists to agree on an uproven conjecture. There are as many points of view as there are scientists. But incredibly, all major scientific organizations are in lock-step agreement, as Chris says. That makes no sense, logically.
          There is not even one professional organization that deviates from the Party line, as spelled out by Chris: AGW is real, ands it has been proven.
          AGW may be real (or not), but it is far from proven. Proving AGW would win a Nobel Prize for any scientist. But after a century of diligent searching by thousands of highly educated and well trained scientists using the latest Metrology instruments, no one has been able to quantify AGW with a verifiable measurement. Every one of those scientists craves that Nobel Prize. But measuring AGW has been totally elusive. There are two possible reasons for that failure:
          1. AGW does not exist, or…
          2. AGW is so minuscule that it is unmeasurable. Any tiny signal is lost in the noise.
          Personally, I think that AGW exists. But it is so small that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. It is a tiny 3rd-order forcing, swampled by many 2nd-order forcings. Those in turn are swamped by 1st-order forcings. Any forcing from human-emitted CO2 is so very tiny that it cannot be measured. It is like weighing a flea on an elephant using a bathroom scale.
          Science is nothing without data. Measurements are data. But there are NO measurements quantifying AGW. None at all. Therefore: AGW remains an unproven conjecture. QED
          “Without data, anyone who does anything is free to claim success.”
          ~ Angus Deaton
          “In God we trust, all others bring data.”
          ~ W. Edwards Deming
          “To measure is to know.”
          ~ Lord Kelvin, Nobel Laureate
          But we don’t know. If we knew, we could quantify AGW.
          The small (usually 6-member) Boards of professional organizations have hijacked their groups to improperly speak for tens of thousands of members who are denied any voice; and who are denied the right to contact their fellow members through the organization, and a majority of whom probably agree with the OISM statement (that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere). Instead, these six-member Boards have been bought and paid for. This is very easy to do, as Dr. Lindzen shows.
          The targets of this propaganda are unthinking people like Chris, who head-nods along with the Boards’ pronouncements from on high. Chris and others are being led by these Appeals to Authority because they do not want to expend the mental effort required to be skeptics. It is much easier to let a self-serving group of ethics-challenged rent seekers do their thinking for them.
          If Chris (or anyone else) can produce one verifiable, testable, empirical, replicable, and widely accepted measurement that quantifies the percentage of AGW out of total global warming from all forcings (including natural global warming from the planet’s recovery from the LIA), then I will apologize, and agree that Chris is right and I am wrong.
          Of course, the reverse applies as well, and what I wrote above is true.

  2. I am no oceanographer, I understand the mechanisms of methane and dynamics of seawater absorption darkly but I can smell a crock from a mile off.
    I am also a perpetual cynic of such as, the Wegener Institute and other not so academically robust ‘colleges’ which these days are full of ‘climate cuties’ post normally educated – and studying daft suppositions….. pscientists. Furthermore, if poorly researched and crassly speculative papers are published by Nature Scientific which is the in house climatologists version of its sister the National Enquirer – thus it grants the peer review process – levels of barely imperceptible legitimacy [also refer to the IPCC……or, not as the case is].
    Tell you what though, here’s what I think on Methane – Clathrates in sea water – mainly if it [Methane] is detected and absorbed/suspended in sea water. There will always be, a slow seepage when the sediments at the ocean floor are somehow disturbed. Methane deposits are found in the depths and thanks to dying organic matter, chemical breakdown, thermal processes and biological actions on organic matter which are slowed due to the Arctic temperatures and frozen, held in stasis into ice bound clathrates.
    I dunno how Arctic Methane is affected or unaffected by a partial melt during the northern summer months and its knock on effects on Atmospheric concentrations of Methane gas, what I can guess is, the effects will be almost negligible to quite probably – non existent.
    I do however acknowledge that, Methane is a powerful GHG.
    More that, the release of summer Methane in Boreal landscapes is a factor in the Atmospheric dynamics but we are talking nigh on exclusively of Summer Tundra permafrost melt and not sea and sea ice concentrations.
    Next.

    • I am also a perpetual cynic of such as, the Wegener Institute and other not so academically robust ‘colleges’ which these days are full of ‘climate cuties’ post normally educated – and studying daft suppositions….. pscientists. Furthermore, if poorly researched and crassly speculative papers are published by Nature Scientific which is the in house climatologists version of its sister the National Enquirer – thus it grants the peer review process – levels of barely imperceptible legitimacy [also refer to the IPCC……or, not as the case is].

      Or as Paul Simon once sang: “Man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest”.

      • And writes about it accordingly. Compare two sentence about the same event I observed on a recent trip to Iceland.
        “The glacier ice retreated 2 km in the last two years.”
        “The glacier ice retreated 2 km in the last two years due to the ash cover blown on it from the near-by volcano.”
        That’s, I guess, why courts require “the truth and whole truth.”

      • In the case of the Wegener and far more so with the Potsdam Institute, you get what see -whether you want or not- more or less dogma biased “findings”. In the case of the Potsdam Institute there is little or nothing to disregard – its mostly alarmist junk science.

      • mark, the very existence of stellar constellations in the sky is validation that man is obsessed with finding and inventing pattern. Man has to see patterns in whatever he looks at. This applies to everything. It is probably hardwired into the brain at the subconscious level. And, like the stars , there is no actual pattern that correlates to what has been ascribed. when you look for it, you will definitely find it.

    • “I do however acknowledge that, Methane is a powerful GHG.”
      Uh huh, the usual numbers range from around 20 times to nearly 100 times more powerful than CO2.
      Do you know why methane is said to be such a powerful Green House Gas?

      • An honest answer would do. I’m guessing you read it somewhere but never worried about the details.
        1. There’s not much of it so it doesn’t take much to double its concentration
        2. It oxidizes into water and CO2. Probably the only way water vapor makes it to the stratosphere.
        3. I has a low molecular weight, compared to CO2 hence the by weight factor is enhanced.
        If anyone has no. 4 on the list let me know.
        But I think those “reasons” don’t amount to what’s claimed. Methane’s infrared absorption footprint is tiny and covered up by water vapor.

    • @Athelsan, I wonder how much the effect the 2011 earthquake and tsunami ( and the ongoing volcanic and tectonic activity ) has had on the Arctic Basin. As those events might have disturbed large amounts of methane that would have traveled by ocean currents to the arctic?

  3. As a result of the melting and freezing processes, methane in the brine channels can be released into the seawater. Further, the water remains in stable layers, due to the different densities of freshwater and saltwater. As such, the methane from the brine channels remains in the uppermost water layer throughout the summer.

    Brine is super dense and goes straight to the bottom. If it is just ice melt water they are talking about, that water is depleted in methane. (the methane having been previously frozen out into the brine)
    The logic at a key point becomes incoherent.

  4. They found that the brine had a thousand times higher concentration of methane than the atmosphere – proof that sea ice can be a source of methane.

    YUP, and I have proof that a bottle of beer can be a source of CO2.
    Oh well, such silliness will get your name on a published paper so not all is an act of futility.

  5. In the last 20 years, Methane concentration at Barrow Alaska has increased by about 100 ppb or 0.1 ppm.
    Barrow Alaska is the sweet spot for measuring methane (and other GHGs) in the Arctic and is a world-class research station because of it.
    http://s21.postimg.org/lgu6zoqqv/ccgg_BRW_ch4_1_none_discrete_all.png
    So, a smaller-type increase in the last 20 years when the Arctic sea ice was declining.
    But this increase would only translate to a forcing change of 0.036 W/m2 if applied to the whole world which would increase temperatures by a meaningless 0.006C.
    I wouldn’t worry about it, if I were you.

  6. Great, we can vacuum up any increasing amounts of frozen methane to reduce the amounts of potentially more “polluting” and “dangerous” greenhouse gases and use it as some equivalent LNG to power our power stations, cars, lorries and trains which will then only emit CO2!

  7. Seems like they’re talking about the height of a piece of furniture by analyzing changes in the dust on top of it. And then projecting based on assumptions.

  8. I learnt a lot about the Arctic Ocean, and sea ice and methane by reading the article by Caleb Shaw a few days ago, featured on this blog!
    Highly recommended for those that have not read it

    • As Peter c points out Caleb Shaw stated that there are microbes feasting on the methane. I say ship them methane as landfill gas (that gives them sulfur and ammonia) so they grow big and strong for fish to feed on so the seals have meals and the polar bears get fat.
      Makes more sense than methane warming the world and is MUCH more fun.

  9. Apart from being old data and conveniently before ice extent started to increase, I read ‘can’ and ‘could’ – well, either it does or it doesn’t. And it also appears to be another unknown unknown in the settled world of climate science.

  10. They attempt no discussion of the real source of the methane, just concentrating on the seasonal cycling between brine and ice at the surface, and speculating about transport into the depths (only one year of data). If, as they state, that the deep ocean is a methane sink, then, net, it must be coming from above. It seems highly plausible that this will be due to dead organic matter derived from photosynthesis. The photosynthesis should increase with decreasing ice cover, so there may actually be more aggregate methane to transport because the carbon sink is increasing.
    My reaction is still “So what? Who cares?”, but you can tell the authors bias from the first five words “Arctic amplification of global warming….”

  11. Sea water is not a sink for methane. The source is the deep earth where it is created
    about 100 miles down. It rises and when it hits enough pressure or low temperature,
    it becomes a hydrate. Pressure from more natural gas, not just methane, rising,
    pushes the part of the hydrate that is nearest the surface out of its zone of
    stability, allowing it to return to its gaseous state, then to rise.
    This pressure is a constant, but the zone of stability changes with the water temperature
    and/or its depth. Ice does not create natural gas, but can slow the rise which allows the
    microbes, some of which are found on the bottom of the ice layer, to convert more of it to
    CO2.
    If the researchers had tested for any gas other than methane, they would have found
    the ethane, propane, and butane.
    Decaying biomass falling toward the ocean floor and the microbes which consume it
    stay in balance over time, because the microbes bloom to the extent of the food.
    The thus the hydrates on the ocean floor of the ocean accumulate as described
    above.
    The massive spill of natural gas and oil from the Deep Water Horizon spill was
    gone in three months, once the blowout was stopped. There was a massive bloom
    of microbes to consume it

    • Yay! Right on! Natural Balance and food for microbes. A voice with perspective. The sky is not falling, but it is changing as our data from the past suggests it should be expected to change. We are learning; in the process huge amounts of data are being accumulated that tracks and records our observation of the natural change in the climate. It is interesting to index 1880 but a serious contextual error. Why is this miserably poor perspective being tolerated. It scares the uninformed and feeds a false narrative?
      Lets add affirmatively that since we are coming out of the Little Ice Age one would hope and pray that the world is warming….or else. Maybe it isn’t warming fast enough! Please don’t get all fuzzy about no warming because the alternative might be the sign of the end of the interestadial period. In which case climate change is going to have real meaning. In which case anthropogenic climate manipulation to attempt to head off the inevitable is going to be the topic of the day. How do we maintain civilization and quality of life through a 120,000 year Ice Age? Moving into the next ice age will produce human horrors unspeakable. Producing energy from inexpensive sources will be imperative or there will be mass migrations, disease and starvation. Perhaps another dark age. From the Vostok Ice Cores we know the pattern that has existed over the last 450,000 years.
      We have to learn as much as possible NOW and discard quickly theories that have no skill so we can move toward skillful theories.
      See Data: RB Alley “The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from Central Greenland” Journal of Quaternary Science .19:213-226

  12. If I take a sample of anything in solution, and concentrate it, such by removal through evaporation or freeze removal of the solvent, have I in any way increased the amount of solute present?
    No. But by concentrating a reduced carbon energy source (freezing out pure water to form brine), it likely brings it above a threshold whereby it can become a metabolic source of energy for microbes. So in this concentration process, a potent GHG gas (CH4) is converted to a less potent GHG (CO2). Nature apparently is smarter than the scientists at the Helmhotz’s Wegener Institute.

  13. They go on about the brines having such a high methane content. Well, these brines are the residual, very saline, waters left in pockets and tubes in the ice, as ocean water freezes. The resultant ice is depleted in salt and (as we now know, and it’s not surprising, is it?) in methane. No methane is generated, it’s just moved around.
    So the total amount of methane in the ice-plus-water ocean has not changed at all, and newly ice-free sea water can be no more of a source of methane to the atmosphere than it was before it froze over.
    It’s hard to see why this as anything other than a non-eventl, unless of course you are trying to feed the alarmist hype (or looking for the next grant, which is more or less the same thing these days).
    Warmists will undoubtedly use this as supporting material for the methane-monster fear-mongering programme (“in case the public is getting bored with CO2 alarms, let’s give them the real bogey-man CH4”), which it isn’t at all.
    Other than the gratuitous references to global warming and ice-disappearance, it’s just a piece of research that probably tells the oceanography community something that they didn’t know before. That is what science should be: reporting new observations without trying to skew the conclusions to support a pre-existing dogma. Especially in such a transparent way.

    • My impression too. Seems Henry’s law must have been tossed out of consideration as well, considering the difference in densities and temperatures between source-oceans and sink-oceans and the air above them.
      I smell conflation of cyclicality and linearity, by a conclusion based on a miniscule observation period and selected theories of mechanism.

  14. They said: **Sea ice forms a natural barrier on the Central Arctic Ocean, limiting gas exchange between water and atmosphere. Over the past several years, the summer sea ice cover in the Arctic has rapidly decreased. “We’re investigating how the changed conditions are affecting the geochemical interaction between the ocean, ice and atmosphere,” explains Dr Ellen Damm, the first author of the study and a biogeochemist at the Alfred Wegener Institute.**
    “Over the past several years, the summer sea ice cover in the Arctic has rapidly decreased”
    RAPIDLY??? It has been quit level or increasing in the PAST SEVERAL YEARS. Enough to quit reading with these lies.

  15. Some of the greatest “methane (CH4) seeps” in the world can be found in the coal, oil and NG fields of Appalachia (PA, WV & KY).
    The “methane (CH4) seeps” in coal mines are a constant daily danger and are the cause of the majority of all “mining” deaths.
    It is Federally mandated that the air in the mines, with its included methane, be constantly ventilated into the outside atmosphere. Thus millions of cf of CH4 is dispersed in that manner.
    There are also thousands of natural “methane (CH4) seeps” that are not associated with either mining or drilling.

  16. “They found that the brine had a thousand times higher concentration of methane than the atmosphere – proof that sea ice can be a source of methane.”
    Or are the suspected deposits of gas and oil leaking more than those scientists think they are? Actually, I doubt those scientists thought much about it.

  17. dbstealey November 19, 2015 at 9:40 am
    Phil.,
    Sorry, here’s Arctic ice for the past decade:

    I’m rather intrigued as to why you use an obsolete measure which its producers have replaced?
    “The plot above replaces an earlier sea ice extent plot, that was based on data with the coastal zones masked out. This coastal mask implied that the previous sea ice extent estimates were underestimated. The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”
    It also differs from the other compilations in that it uses a 30% coverage threshold.
    Here’s their current version:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
    dbstealey November 20, 2015 at 7:32 pm
    FYI folks, Arctic sea ice extent is higher now (November 2015, day 319; most recent data) than any of the previous nine years for this time of year:

    Interesting that you show the Masie graph which is produced by NSIDC, which you say you don’t trust.
    Current version:
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_Hemisphere_ts_4km.png

    • Phil.

      The new plot displays absolute sea ice extent estimates. The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.”
      It also differs from the other compilations in that it uses a 30% coverage threshold.
      Here’s their current version:
      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

      dbstealey November 20, 2015 at 7:32 pm
      FYI folks, Arctic sea ice extent is higher now (November 2015, day 319; most recent data) than any of the previous nine years for this time of year:

      Interesting that you show the Masie graph which is produced by NSIDC, which you say you don’t trust.
      Current version:
      ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_Hemisphere_ts_4km.png

      Phil: I’m not really sure what your point is: Any two labs will be (and almost always are!) slightly different than any two other labs for the same date. “Sea Ice Extents” and “Sea Ice Area” reports differ as well. As long as the user is comparing two reports from the same lab under the same circumstances, it really doesn’t matter, does it? UNless – as you seem to appear to be – the commentator “wants” only a single thought or result to be promulgated (er, propagandized.)
      So, look at the NSIDC’s graph for the past ten years: Pick a date in 2015 and you can either claim “Arctic Sea Ice has never been higher the past 10 years” or you can claim that “Arctic sea ice has never been lower the past years.”
      http://postmyimage.com/img2/361_Arctic_Sea_Yearly_Graph_2005_2.jpg

      • RACookPE1978 November 23, 2015 at 9:27 am
        Phil: I’m not really sure what your point is: Any two labs will be (and almost always are!) slightly different than any two other labs for the same date. “Sea Ice Extents” and “Sea Ice Area” reports differ as well. As long as the user is comparing two reports from the same lab under the same circumstances, it really doesn’t matter, does it?

        I thought it was quite clear, I was asking why stealey was using an obsolete dataset which its producers say underestimates the sea ice by about 2 million sq km. It does matter which one especially when the one you use will be discontinued and selectively omits particular regions.
        UNless – as you seem to appear to be – the commentator “wants” only a single thought or result to be promulgated (er, propagandized.)
        That does appear to be stealey’s objective, he uses NSIDC’s data when it suits him but refers to them as “the government’s propaganda outlet” on other occasions.
        Your point that day-to-day inter-annual noise is significant over a ten year period is a good one, but you won’t see stealey pointing that out when he’s making his claims.
        By the way stealey, spell-checkers frequently try to change your name to ‘steely’ or ‘stealer’, sorry.

    • Phil.,
      In other words, there’s no problem. Thanks for making that clear.
      RACook,
      Thank you for that. Not only is there no problem at all, but it makes people wonder about the constant Chicken Little clucking about “ice”. Are they claiming that the relatively tiny human CO2 emissions are the cause of Arctic ice fluctuations? If so, that would affect the Antarctic, too. But as we know, that end of the world has been steadily gaining ice, for decades.
      The desperate fixation on “ice” by the alarmist cult is amusing, nothing more. In scientific terms, it’s meaningless. And as we see, Arctic ice has been recovering. That scare has failed, too, just like all the others.

      • OK, so do we not need to answer the question Anthony asked a fwe weeks ago at the beginning of September: “What difference does it (Arctic Sea Ice Extents) make?”
        And .. the only accurate answer is: Well, it depends. But you have to ask the right questions, or you will only get propaganda.
        When (was it missing or gaining area)?
        Where (was it missing or gaining area)?
        How (much did sea ice change)?
        Who (measured it;
        What was missing? (Did they measure extents or area or old photographs or old maps or old logbooks)?
        Then, and only then, can you start wondering “Why (was it missing or gaining) area?”
        But you can only wonder, we do not know enough to answer the actual question. We do, however, have plenty of information that flat-out contradicts completely the “Arctic amplification” theory so tightly held despite the evidence that falsifies it.
        http://postmyimage.com/img2/532_Arctic_Sea_Yearly_Graph_2005_2.jpg
        So, what difference does sea ice make?
        It depends on what day of year it is.
        It depends on what hour of the day it is.
        It depends on where the sea ice is: In which sea or Bay or region is sea ice greater than “normal” and where is it below “normal”?
        It depends on whether the missing (gained) sea ice is in the Southern Hemisphere, or the Northern Arctic Hemisphere, or in Hudson’s Bay, or in the Bering Sea or Sea of Okhotsk.
        It depends on whether or not sunlight is actually falling on the sea ice or water.
        It depends on daily air temperatures, wind speeds, humidity, and wave heights.
        It depends on daily (hourly!) cloud intensity and percent coverage.
        Are today’s sea ice “normal’s” actually “average” or are they biased HIGH because the satellites only started measuring Arctic sea ice in 1979 – a probable high point in a 60-70 year cycle? If you only began measuring the Mississippi River at flood stage in April, would you not worry about a drought if your data showed continuously lowering river levels from April through October?

Comments are closed.