/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7297759
>I not going to show how it distinguishes from natural climate variation because I can't.
> I'm going to pretend that it didn't predict antarctic warming because it actually cooled.

The model predicted that both poles would warm faster. How disingenuous of you to ignore the Antarctic. And yes, related models predicted Antarctic sea ice melting. How disingenuous to ignore that. Oh, and that hot spot prediction failed too. Gosh, you forgot to talk about that one.

Originally Antarctic sea ice was predicted to melt.
1. Detection of Temperature and Sea Ice Extent Changes in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADP007268
2. Greenhouse Gas–induced Climate Change Simulated with the CCC Second-Generation General Circulation Model. G. J. Boer , N. A. McFarlane , and M. Lazare
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281992%29005%3C1045%3AGGCCSW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

>>6436360

>no, what i'm talking about is that if there is less ice, that means its harder for ice to form. >Predictions about extent are equally as vindicated if there is as little ice by volume as they predicted would be the case via extent shrinkage.

No they're not. Again you're mixing apples and oranges. What makes or melts sea ice is probably not the same as what makes or melts land ice, because one relates to sea weather/temps etc. whereas the other relates to the land weather/temps etc.

More to the point, you strike me as an apologist for the AGW thing. No matter how many times their predictions fail, its "we've got to understand this better."

Am I supposed to believe that if the Sea Ice has significantly diminished you'd be saying, "gosh, we need to think about this. We can't be sure what it means." Of course not.

You would be saying Climate Change is proven! And this is the fundamental problem of the "science." Any "prediction" the proves right demonstrates the correctness of the theory. Any prediction that is wrong (as are most) simple means the models are wrong. Its an unfalsifiable belief system.

What am I missing here? If you really want to take it out of the historical context, the only thing people would be saying is that the Antarctic has gotten colder and not surprisingly, the sea ice extent has grown.

BTW, the volume calculation relates to land ice and is irrelevant to sea ice. And I find it suspect...

Why? For example the general cooling trend. Why would there be more melting of land ice. See attached.

BTW, Frankly, I think you're a Climate Change shill. Prove me wrong. What you will do is pretend to be a dis-interested neutral party and then, as if by magic, always nit-pick any argument or evidence that support AGW skepticism and "what do you know!" reach the conclusion that Climate Change is true.