John_Taverner wrote on May 23
rd, 2015 at 11:43am:
Explain what you mean. You are the one trying to put a case against the bulk of scientific knowledge.
Just for you. From the GRACE pages.
'WHAT IS THE UNCERTAINTY IN THIS GIA MODEL?
The uncertainty is about +/- 20%.
The 20% value is somewhat ad-hoc, and comes from looking at results for various viscosity values and alternative deglaciation models for Antarctica and Greenland. This +/-20% probably over-estimates the uncertainty in northern Canada, where the deglaciation history is reasonably well-known;
and it probably underestimates the uncertainty in Antarctica and Greenland, where the ice history is not as well-known. Plus, if you happen to be looking at a region where the model is close to zero because it is a transition region from large positive values to large negative values, then +/-20% of near-zero values is likely to underestimate the uncertainty.'
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/pgr/So Antarctica is likely to have error bars higher than +/- 20%. But they don't know what they are.
But they have the utmost confidence that ice loss is 'net mass balance at -71 ± 53 gigatonnes per year.'
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surfac...And all this predicated partly on a model on which they don't know the error bars. This is sometimes referred to as Scientific Wild Assed Guess, or SWAG.
Even if it was 71-53, the maximum error, that still leaves a negative ice balance.
All I've heard as an alternative is that the sea ice figures have increased. This is just a predictable consequence of increased continental ice melt.