muso wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 5:52am:



Tell you what. You think there are models that did take this basic aspect of physics into consideration. Very well. Why then did NONE of the models predict more ice, rather than less??

I tell you why. Because these models lack accuracy because they are based, all of them, on hugely incomplete understanding. Proof? None predicted the growth of ice. They all predicted loss of ice. They all predicted wrong. So what they did and didn't take into consideration is all the more proof of their inadequacy.  The rest is arse-covering slippin' and slidin'.

Good model = predictive power.
Crap model = takes all sorts of things into consideration yet cannot predict anything accurately.


Show me the model that predicted more ice.

muso wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:11am:



I have already.
All models that did not predict growing ice coverage as a result of water being made more 'vulnerable to freezing' are worthless. This is now the post-hoc line but no so-called scientific model ever predicted it.
I am not aware of any modelling that predicted more ice as a result of AGW. Are you?

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:44am:

The AGW loon pseudo scientists just make it up as they go along

Antarctic ice has rarely been more extensive - is that weather? But when arctic ice shrinks - that's climate.
Is that how it works? Scary bad news - climate. Good news/no news - weather.

Anyway, the explanation for the ice-trapped ship was that AGW made sea water less salty (melting icebergs - thus making it 'more vulnerable to freezing'.
So the explanation for the ice trap was not weather but AGW - ie climate.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 2:22pm:



Er... Prof Chris Turney.

Q: Dr Adam Rutherford: The fact that it’s expanding, that - that sounds counter-intuitive, when we talk about the polar ice caps melting, as a result of global warming.

A: Prof Chris Turney:  Yeah, well, it’s a fascinating thing, isn’t it, really. Ultimately, global warming covers a vast array of different responses by our planet. And one of the fascinating things that we’re seeing is suggestions that large parts of the oceans off East Antarctica are actually getting fresher. And yet you’ve got this expanding sea ice, and one of the ideas we’re testing out here is this idea that when you’re melting the sea ice around the East Antarctic coastal fringes, at depth - not from air temperature but from warmer oceans - what you’re doing is you’re putting that fresh water from the Antarctic ice sheets into the oceans. It’s lighter, it’s less dense than salt water, so it floats to the surface relatively, and then it’s more vulnerable to freezing. And hence you get an expansion of sea ice cover. So that’s one idea that we’re testing at the moment.

muso wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:11am:

He wants you to do his homework: slippery tryhards these private school tryhards 

Three post from the dead horse flocker - and none of them makes any sense.
No fvckn mental climate change THERE!!!!!
I blame the oxigen. It should be turned orf.

A professor wants to retrace Mawson's route a hundred years later - and gets stuck in smacking ice.

After a hundred years, after countless fvckn climate models, satellites, weather stations, computers, improved ship building technology, climate modelling, weather data, five fvckn IPCC reports - and he is stuck in the ice.

Your education dollars at work.