|
|
|
|
|
|
by quoderat
6196 days ago
|
|
|
The problem is, increasing Antarctic ice is expected, given the warming actually occurring: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/whats-really-up... "But scientists studying trends at both poles say there is nothing inconsistent with the intensifying greenhouse effect. William Chapman, who maintains the helpful Cryosphere Today Web site at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, sent me an email this morning reminding me of a 2005 study that projects more Antarctic sea ice (by volume) in a warming world." And that's without even getting into the question of is the climate change anthropogenic or not. Given what we know about CO2, hard to see how it could be otherwise, but not worth arguing over. What will happen, will happen. |
|
|
That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. But it is not evidence, nor is it conclusive. There is simply no reason to believe Powell's explanation over the explanation I cited in my previous comment. The NASA explanation is based on actual observation rather than computer simulations.
The climate is so complex that you can always come up with an after the fact explanation. The only way to judge science is either a) by the predictions it makes or b) following the chain of deductive reasoning. Predictions are not really possible with climate science in the short term because there are too many variables. So that leaves b). I have not studied the science behind sea ice changes closely. But many of the global climate models have been subjected to egregious tuning: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2475
Given what we know about CO2, hard to see how it could be otherwise, but not worth arguing over.
The effect of CO2 on temperature is both a) logarithmic and b) non-cumulative. For models to predict a levels of warming that are actually alarming, the models must include feedback loops. No one knows if these feedback effects are real. They are entirely speculative.