… planetary sea ice cover varies seasonally between around 14 and 23 million square kilometres (that’s a 9M variation!), without any clear variation in the sea level as a response to that. Why would a hypothetical average loss of up to 3 M km2 in the arctic be supposed to cause a big change in the sea level? …

Sea ice melt has no affect whatever on sea level, as it is already floating. The concern is over ice sheet breakup in greenland and ant arctica. Here, ice that has been frozen for millenia sits thousands of feet deep on top of land. If it melts, sea levels will rise.

To make the odds better for you, I here declare that in case I win the bet in its stated terms, I will refuse to claim my money if the average sea ice extension in the Southern Hemisfere between 2000 and 2020 is smaller than the average between 1979 and 2000, in any ammount.

“At no time between now and the end of the year 2020 will the minimum total Arctic Sea ice extent be less than 10% of the 1979-2000 average minimum annual Arctic Sea ice extent, as measured by NSIDC data or any other measurement mutually agreed-upon; provided, however, that if two or more volcanic eruptions with the energy level equal to or greater than the 1991 Mount Pinatubo shall occur between now and the end of 2020, then all bets are voided.”

Melting sea-ice of course has virtually no impact on sea level. It may well be the first in a cascading series of events that 1) leads to much more drought in the SW and 2) faster melting in Greenland.

But most importantly, it tells us that the climate is changing even faster than the IPCC fears, and that the amplifying feedbacks they acknowledged inadequately modeling are in fact important.

For all of the delayers out there who CLAIM to be so certain recent data proves we are in a cooling trend and that therefore AGW has been disproved or falsified — the fact that not a single one of you is willing to take isn’t that — NOT A SINGLE ONE — I think reveals to all you don’t actually believe the nonsense you are spouting.

What do you understand by “90% free”? Do you mean ice free 90% of the year? Do you mean that the minimum will be 10% of the maximum? Of which maximum?

Anyway, planetary sea ice cover varies seasonally between around 14 and 23 million square kilometres (that’s a 9M variation!), without any clear variation in the sea level as a response to that. Why would a hypothetical average loss of up to 3 M km2 in the arctic be supposed to cause a big change in the sea level? If it won’t, which other terrible effects do you expect it to cause?

Ok, let’s update the record of perennial ice a bit. South Pole’s minimum this year happened by mid february:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/ cryosphere/ IMAGES/ current.365.south.jpg

Since then it has been rising and will continue to do so until september. But what was the minimum last year?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/ cryosphere/ IMAGES/ current.area.south.jpg

Hmmm, it looks like the minimum this year has been about +0,5M km2 more than last year’s. This means we have…

+0,5 MILLION SQUARE KILOMETRES of PERENNIAL ICE in the South.

Let’s wait until September and see what happens with the perennial ice in the North Pole. I bet right now that it will be at least another +0,5M compared to 2007’s, which was abnormaly low, meaning a total increase of +1M km2 of perennial ice in only one year.

By the way, the total planetary anomaly right now is almost +1 million. Call it bad ice if you would like. It is more than the average of 79-00, it is not water and it is no sea-level increase.

Their ideologies – and by extension their identities – aren’t held up to examinaton and found to be wanting, incorrect, inapt, etc.

Best,

D