No word from Gore yet, according to the site.

REPLY: And there will not be. Do you really expect the big hypocrite phoney to acutally bet his own money on the farce that he is pimping the world over? That will be the day we have a string of 90+ degree days here in Pittsburgh! (ROFLOL)

If Al doesn't take him up on the bet, then I will.

In fact, I'll wager that the Global average temperature in 2017 will be greater than 2007 AND that both the min and max arctic sea ice extent will be less.

For those who don't know, the arctic is the primary feedback mechanism for Global warming.

Slightly warmer temperatures that we've witnessed over the last 250 years has resulted in a decline in arctic sea ice. The decline in sea ice in turn leads to higher temperatures since less of the suns energy is reflected into space. So, the global temperature rise will accelerate from the rate between 1750 to 2000.

Can us regular folk get in on the action. I'd like to take some Goreacle money too!

Isn't 10 years too long by the way? I thought that one of the tenets of the Goreacle's beliefs is that 10 years would be too late.

What a great level article!!! At last, some seeks to look at the methodology! Intriguing results indeed.

Thanks for finding this Brett.

Also, their paper is here for oyur perusal:

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf

Mr. Gore will never make the bet because he has most of the mainstream media and a legion of mindless dolts already convinced the sky is falling. Why ruin what he already has?
Mr. Gore certainly has no intention of giving the AGW forces the chance to bring some reality to this farce.
Ted

I've never seen the graph on page 12 (figure 2) of the article. It looks pretty clear to me....

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf

Andrew,

No matter how many times I post this link, some AGW challenged people seem to be not getting the message.

Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice. The Antarctic ice mass is steadily increasing, and has been for a long time.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

"Don't panic Mr. Mannering"

While Gore could afford hundreds of these bets, I'd put my money on him not taking the bet. The risk of an embarrassment is higher than winning money, especially such a small amount for Gore. It's going to be bad enough that "An Inconvenient truth" will be played and mocked for our amusement like the old 50's female education videos explaining how to be a good wife. Maybe it will become the new "Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling" though it would have to be renamed to something like "Big Fat Lying Chicken from Tennessee, Al Gore's Carbon Credit Blues".

Andrew,

Be sure to write Professor Armstrong to let him know of your intentions to take his bet. On a different note; Perhaps you can explain how the Artic is the "primary feedback mechanism" for GW? Curious how we emerged from the last Ice Age since about everything above 40 degrees North was reflecting the Sun's energy back into space. How much will the rate increase over the "slight" increase we saw from 1750 to 2007? I mean a slight increase since the end of the LIA which was a slight decrease from the previous period (Medieval Warm Period) which was a slight increase from the previous period (Dark Ages) is so "slight" that your prediction that a rate increase will occur is moot.

All AGW'ers,

Be sure to take your stand now while you actually have an audience. When the cooling does occur, you will likely be chastised for a moment, then the issue will fade into obscurity except for a few diehard individuals that will hound you to death for your ignorance. Wonder what your next crisis will be? Why don't y'all pick a real cause like land usage or population, heck recycling needs another boost. This way when you're whining you may get some people who don't simply whine about things to get the things done that you're too busy whining about to do yourselves.

If anyone has not seen the South Park episode "Man Bear Pig" it is a good representation of Al Gore and GW.

Slightly warmer temperatures that we've witnessed over the last 250 years has resulted in a decline in arctic sea ice.

REPLY: Alrighty then, Andrew. Let's say that this is true. 250 years is a long time, which surpasses the Industrial Revolution going back in history. Where were all of the Carbon poisons that you people are griping about before then? Where were all of the greenhouse gases that are destroying the earth?

Armstrong was a fool to propose this and Gore would be one not to take him up on it. There's an excellent chance global temperarture will be higher 10 years from today. All Gore has to do is confide in Dr. S Fred Singer and trust the 15,000 climate cycle of which we're squarely in the midst. And, the artificial greenhouse will most likely be stronger too.

I would wager as a surrogate

umm....why hasn't anyone in this thread acutally addressed the issues noted within the Article for which this thread is named??? There's pretty strong stuff in there and it's based on science....

Apparently, the scientific method of choice for the deniers is gambling.

Not surprising at all.

I'd take him up on it. I could use an extra $10,000 and it'd be the easiest money to win -- it'd almost be like free money.

Brett, it turns out that the bet offer is spurious, probably just a marketing ploy to get attention for his "paper."

Patrick;

Check your link. It's for sea ice (not the ice sheet) and doesn't show much of any trend. It's also not expected to change very much until after the arctic melts.

Steve;

I email'd Armstrong. Apparently he is only betting that there won't be dramatic warming (what ever that is.)

I'm also not sure how the earth ever emerged from the last ice age. Most explanations are fairly weak. So, my conclusion is that climate is in a very delicate balance and very subtle changes can (over time) have very significant results thru feedback mechanisms.

Oiznop;

Believe the industrial revolution started around 1750, or at least carbon emissions were great enough by then they impacted global atmospheric levels. The impact on global temperatures in 1750 were of course minor. It's just taken a while for the levels to grow to the point that it does impact global temperatures and feedback mechanisms start kicking in (water vapor levels and sea ice melting primarily so far).

"It's for sea ice (not the ice sheet)"

Andrew,

Sea ice and ice sheet are the same thing. That is why they call it a "sheet" i.e flat. Additionally it is a clear indication of colder temperatures.

Glacial ice is also believed to be increasing in Antarctica, and in the interior of Greenland.

Andrew,

One more thing. The University of Illinois maps show ~10% growth in the Antarctic ice sheet since 1987. Do you consider that not a trend? By AGW standards, that is spectacular.

Sea ice and ice sheet are the same thing. That is why they call it a "sheet" i.e flat. Additionally it is a clear indication of colder temperatures.

I fear Patrick Henry is mistaken about "sea ice" and "ice sheet". In this representative example from NASA, the two terms are used within the same paragraph in a way that highlights their difference in meaning:

By the end of the 2002 season, the total area of surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet had broken all known records. That same summer, Mark Serreze and his colleagues at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, began noticing unusually low levels of sea ice in the Arctic, based on remote sensing data. "I was really surprised by the change," Serreze said. "By the end of the summer, sea ice levels in the Arctic were the lowest in decades and possibly the lowest in several centuries." (emphasis mine)

The term "ice sheet" refers to ice that covers a land mass -- for example, the Greenland Ice Sheet or the Antarctic Ice Sheet.

The term "sea ice" refers to ice that floats in the sea or frozen sea water -- for example, "sea ice levels in the Arctic (ocean)."

The growth in the Antarctic ice sheet, as has been explained here multiple times, is a predicted response to AGW. Warmer air reaching Antarctica has more moisture content and hence drops more snow on the continent, ultimately causing the Antarctic Ice Sheet to expand. The surprising news that the Antarctic Ice Sheet has grown less (not more) than anticipated.

BT,

Sea ice is expanding in Antarctica. This has nothing to do with precipitation. The only thing which can explain it is lower temperatures.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Sea ice is expanding in Antarctica. This has nothing to do with precipitation. The only thing which can explain it is lower temperatures.

At least you seem to agree that "sea ice" is different from "ice sheet".

The links you posted don't, to my naive eye, demonstrate any particular trend up or down. I suppose if someone had access to the numerics of the "Sea Ice Anomaly" chart, we could smooth and plot the data -- if we did, I think we'd see a random walk with some scatter around it.

If there's a signal in that noise, it is not apparent to the naked eye.

BT-

The trend is pretty easy to spot. If a linear fit was made it would run from about -0.5 in 1978 to up to +0.5 in 2008. One million square kilometers is a lot of ice.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

A quick qualitative analysis of the graph - prior to 1994, most of the plot lines are below the center line, and after 1994 most of the plot lines are above the center line. You can also easily see that the summer minimums are increasing linearly. The summer numbers are most significant, because the ice always returns in the winter.

Summer
1980 -1.75
1986 -1.5
2002 -1.0
2007 -0.75

Patrick, this is little different from a chart of the inflation-adjusted closing of an arbitrarily-chosen commodity.

There's no "there" there, at least not with only three decades of data and not that can be gleaned from such casual "analysis". I simply disagree with your interpretation of this data.

BT,

Interesting how the debate has shifted from "the Antarctic ice cap is melting" to "how much is it expanding?" The three decades which you refer to are the same three decades which the entire AGW story is supposedly based on. Three decades ago climatologists were warning that we were all going to freeze to death, and since then the Antarctic ice mass has continued to increase.

The burden of proof needs to be on the radicals proposing to raise taxes and massively increase government control over our lives, not the other way around.

BTW - another AGW myth exploded-
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html

Speaking of the polar ice caps melting. It is the warmest week of the year in Greenland, and temperatures are -13F/-25C
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076

That is balmy though compared to -73F in Antarctica.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-78.44999695,106.87000275

Good time to have a concert to save the ice.

There you go again, Patrick. I challenge your interpretation of your own chart (no data, just a picture), and you're again off to the races with "radicals", "raise taxes", "massively increase government control over our lives", and similar rubbish.

As you deniers are found of shouting when the forecasts and observations go in the other direction, specific weather events do not in themselves prove or disprove theories and observations about climate change.

As we speak, Accuweather's own Joe Bastardi says:
While some may be quick to ascribe this summer's potentially extreme weather conditions to global warming, Bastardi warns against this. "The weather events that occur in individual seasons don't provide conclusive proof of global warming," he said. "Also, conditions this summer will be similar to the summers of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and no one attributes the severe weather that occurred then to human-induced global warming, particularly since we entered a period of cooler temperatures soon thereafter." (emphasis mine)

It appears that once again our deniers leap to the shouting, bluster, and scare-mongering when somebody dares challenge their interpretation of their own cherry-picked data.

BT-

Not sure what your point is. The graph I linked is not my "own chart." It is the graph provided by the Arctic research lab at the University of Illinois. The purpose of graphs are to provide a means of visual interpretation. If you obtained the raw data from the University and applied a linear fit, you would see numbers close to what I estimated from the graph. If you have a dispute with my interpretation, please take appropriate mathematical steps to prove me wrong.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Numerous politicians are calling for raising taxes and forcing changes to our lifestyle. Chirac called for raising taxes within hours of the IPCC report coming out. Merkel is calling for global government to legislate "temperature change." How radical (and absurd) can you get?

Your apparent unwillingness to see what is happening politically surrounding AGW, does not make it "rubbish."

BT:

You know, I cannot wait for the first hurricane to develop this year. I predict that within 24 hours of the development, a major media outlet will run a piece describing it as a sign of global warming. Man induced of course. Then, there will be a constant drumbeat as the others try to outpanic each other. Betcha even the Goreacle will come out and make a far reachig statement on it.

I'd be willing to put up chocolate buckeyes against say some Boston baked beans. Are they really from Boston though?

BT -

To use your own quote from Joe Bastardi:

While some may be quick to ascribe this summer's potentially extreme weather conditions to global warming, Bastardi warns against this. "The weather events that occur in individual seasons don't provide conclusive proof of global warming," he said. "Also, conditions this summer will be similar to the summers of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, and no one attributes the severe weather that occurred then to human-induced global warming, particularly since we entered a period of cooler temperatures soon thereafter."

Sounds to me that Dr. Bastardi, someone regarded as a long range forecasting expert, appreciates the cyclicality of our climate. If you read his analyses in depth, you quickly come to realize that he's not completely convinced about Global Warming and the dire forecasts. He depends much more on historical pattern analysis and current pattern trends.