Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Sunday, November 01, 2015

Government scientist: Arctic will be ice free in 2012. Keeps job

Jay Zwally is everything that is wrong with government science. He is Civil Service protected and he has all the time in the world -- and budget -- to do as he pleases, answerable to noone. Over the years he has made outlandish claims and wild-eyed predictions that invariably did not come to pass. For 40 years he has been on the payroll. No one has called him out. I shall.

In 2007, Jay Zwally made his most outlandish and foolish prediction, telling the Associated Press: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

Jay Zwally joined NASA in 1972 and is now Chief Cryospheric Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and Project Scientist for the Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat). He has a doctorate in physics from the University of Maryland and has worked on polar ice throughout his career. Somewhere along the line, he fell in love with the theory that a minute rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (a nutrient) will melt the poles.

In that 2007 interview, he said, "The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming. Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

Arctic ice however has rebounded, because anyone with a lick of sense knows that weather is cyclical. One would think that an expert in polar ice -- a fellow who has studied polar ice for more than 50 years -- would know this.

But this is government science, not to be taken seriously. He is Civil Service. Not to disparage civil servants; they do good work. But they are not equipped to make policy decisions, and this is where Jay Zwally and the rest messed up.

His 2007 interview came ahead of a global warming confab in Bali where Civil Service types from around the world met to hammer out details for the Copenhagen Summit in 2009, which was derailed by Denmark's first blizzard since World War II, and the release of Climategate emails.

But after decades of claiming Antarctica was melting because of the loss of sea ice, Zwally has had to admit that the ice on Antarctica is growing and has been growing for decades.

From Science Daily:
 According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
"We're essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica," said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. "Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica -- there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas." Zwally added that his team "measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas."
Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally. "If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they've been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."
I will make a safe prediction: Jay Zwally will never be held accountable for his waste of taxpayer money pushing the global warming agenda.

Congress needs to rein in NASA's rogue scientists.

And yes, someday the ice will melt on Antarctica and it will become a tropical paradise again.

We will all be long gone by then, and nothing we are doing now will have a damned thing to do with it. We are not that powerful.

Heck, we cannot even control our goverment anymore, let alone the weather.


  1. I will make a safe prediction: Jay Zwally will never be held accountable for his waste of taxpayer money pushing the global warming agenda. Congress needs to rein in NASA's rogue scientists.

    The Global Warming (TM) nuts call for Climate Change deniers to be put on trial and jailed. Is there any difference between what they want and what you've just written about a NASA scientist? The way to fight bad science is with good science. There's no need to make Zwally into another Galileo-like figure. If his science is indeed bad, eventually the truth will out. In the meantime, press on and continue to go after government officials who pursue policies in the name of CC that are hostile to our freedoms and our nation's future.

  2. Don is right on. Accountability has dissapered in politics because the stateless nature of bottomless wealth has eliminated it with prejudice. Science was supposed to be different and was until Global Warming became a rite. In the private world being wrong all the time usually means a job termination. In the government one just gets a new and more exotic title.

  3. Is he getting "performance" raises?

  4. Governments and religions have always been at odds with science, since they like to control the narrative and be the ultimate purveyors of truth and science may give a different view. Government and religions have always been rigid with dogma, brooking no dispute with the approved "facts." Science is and has always been a more durable institution - governments and religions come and go, but the aggregate understanding of our world comes from the methods of experiment and observation, which always win out in the end.

  5. Yet another Climate Extremist