Do you understand how models are generated? Models use real data to model something that is know. In science that is they use data to create a model that replicates the exisiting data (with usually 95% confience interval). The current models can only be incorrect for "future" ice extents (and most work on long-term averages ... so you can't really come to a conclusion on most of the models in IPCC reports for another 100 years or so).
Let's see, this delusion/distortion sounds like, zippi, Kano, James? I think it's James. RIGHT. Interesting that their distortions are, to some extent, traceable to them.
One might point out that the VOLUME of sea ice is less. But then, of course, you're not interested in that. You're not interested in anything that conflicts with what you'd like to say.
One does wonder whether you honestly believe what you're saying, or are saying it because, for example, you don't want America to address global warming, and raise the price of energy. If I had a better memory, I'd know. If the excuses you post are really consistent, then the former would be reasonable. On the other hand, if you post all kinds of random distortions, then it's more likely that, for you, it's all about the price of energy, and whatever excuse will accomplish that is just fine.
There have been a few studies that have shown that most climate models are complete ****.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/08...
Of course alarmists will somehow claim that most climate models are incredibly accurate even though they are nowhere near reality. Alarmists live in a Bizarro world where actual reality is meaningless and the model IS their reality.
Alarmist: "There was a model that said the world will warm 1 degree Celcius per decade starting in the year 2000."
Skeptic: "There is absolutely no temperature data set that says it's anywhere close to that."
Alarmist (with blank expression on face): "Then there was another model that said there would be a 1.1 degree Celcius increase every decade starting in the year 2000 which proves the first model was incredibly accurate."
Mintie, 95% confidence level? On what planet do you live on? Climate models are notoriously wrong and all experts agree on that fact. John Barnes,a climate scientist bemoans this very fact : “If you look at the last decade of global temperature, it’s not increasing,” Barnes said. “There’s a lot of scatter to it. But the [climate] models go up. And that has to be explained. Why didn’t we warm up?”..."We do have satellites that can measure the energy budget, but there’s still assumptions there. There’s assumptions about the oceans, because we don’t have a whole lot of measurements in the ocean.”
Joe Joyce I don't rely on denier blogs except when they quote some idiocy you fellow propagandists dream up. Here is a quote from a fellow greenie: Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.” Ha! Ha! Can't you fellas get anything right. My goodness, all you have to do is look at REAL facts.
Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
So Joe, you go ahead and base your conclusions on admitted fiction and the true scientists on this site will stick to real data and facts.
Furthermore Joe were you one of those GW believers who got stuck in all that GW in Antarctica last January? I would just like to know.
Linlyons, "One might point out that the VOLUME of sea ice is less." Ha! Ha! Tell that to those greenies who got stuck down under last January.
Also that is easy for you to fabricate since to date there is no reliable scientific method of accurately measuring volume. Ask anyone in the real know and they will tell you that they are working on it and getting some fairly good results but nothing near conclusive.
Gary F: Your quote as proof, "“Most of the Antarctic ice sheet is likely to thicken as a result of increased precipitation.” Likely and increased. Wow! That is real down to your skivvies scientific. Do you really think crap like that will impress anyone with half a scientific mind? ARE YOU COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR GOURD? Do you even bother with things written with the likes of 'likely' and 'increased'? My goodness, where did you ever learn anything about science? From Al Gore?
If you, James, who rely on denier blogs, were so wrong about the science here, then shouldn't we challenge the credibility of the rest of your claims, considering these same denier blogs were caught and exposed for lying over and over and over again?
Look at pictures of the break-up of the Larsen B ice shelf, and read the definitions of sea ice coverage. When Larsen broke up and "exploded into a blue slushie" it covered roughly 4-5 times the surface area of the water with less ice., as much melted while it was pushing out into the water. There's more sea ice coverage of ocean surface but there's less ice. So now, James, Kano, here's the question - the ice covers more water area. Is there more ice, or less?
Denialists love to talk about computer models, as if we would be clueless about the effects of adding a gas that traps heat without them. Let's forget about computer models, and instead talk about basic physics. Basic physics tells us that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere causes warming and the warming melts ice, and that enough warming and enough ice melt will cause the sea level to rise by 70 metres.
If you were not such not an idiot, innocent people would not be exposed to your stupidity
Which models - out of the 0 (zero) you know anything about - are you talking about?
Let's see what the IPCC actually said"
“With rising global temperature, GCMs indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation .”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
“Most of the Antarctic ice sheet is likely to thicken as a result of increased precipitation.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/i...
>>Unlike in the Arctic, a strong decline in sea ice extent has not been observed in the Antarctic during the period of satellite observations (Section 4.4.2.2). Fichefet et al. (2003) conducted a simulation of Antarctic ice thickness using observationally based atmospheric forcing covering the period 1958 to 1999. They note pronounced decadal variability, with area average ice thickness varying by ±0.1 m (compared to a mean thickness of roughly 0.9 m), but no long-term trend. However, Gregory et al. (2002b) find a decline in antarctic sea ice extent in their model, contrary to observations. They suggest that the lack of consistency between the observed and modelled changes in sea ice extent might reflect an unrealistic simulation of regional warming around Antarctica, rather than a deficiency in the ice model. Holland and Raphael (2006) examine sea ice variability in six MMD 20C3M simulations that include stratospheric ozone depletion. They conclude that the observed weak increase in antarctic sea ice extent is not inconsistent with simulated internal variability, with some simulations reproducing the observed trend over 1979 to 2000, although the models exhibit larger interannual variability in sea ice extent than satellite observations.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
========
kano --
>>Ah come on, when have climate models ever got anything right. <<
Ah, come on, when have you ever looked at a single climate model, or read a book on climate models (what they are, what they do, how to interpret model performance and results), went to a public presentation by a climate modeler), or even looked for anything written about climate models that did not have a headline saying how bad they were – or did not believe something that told you what you wanted to hear?
Did the IPCC models predict the ocean warming that has happened to date? If it did, then they can't use that as an excuse for the lack of warming.
The Daily Mail seems to be confusing total ice mass with winter ice extent.
Kano - how much change in solar energy absorption do you expect to see from winter polar albedo change? What change do you see in summer albedo?
Could you please provide a link to these "computer climate models" that you claim were so wrong about antarctic sea ice?
we challenge the credibility of the rest of their claims considering that those same computer climate models are used to forecast those other ridiculous catastrophic global warming caused climate disasters the IPCC is spewing?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html
"In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing.
The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’"
Challenge, Yes. But claim disproof, No.
Ah come on, when have climate models ever got anything right.
Remember declining albedo from ice extent is one of the positive feedbacks of climate change, well now global ice extent is 1 million sq K above average.
The other positive feedback water vapor is not working either.
All in all climate change from CO2 is looking pretty pathetic.
Linlyons and Joe, there is more ice http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
A huge amount of ice about the size of Pakistan
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_A...
