More evidence from the peer-reviewed literature suggests 'observations' (science) trumps (pun intended) 'estimates' ('the Science™'), courtesy of Andreasen et al. (2022), in The Cryosphere
It is far easier to get the results asked for using models, as the model (just like AI) only shows what it's been fed, which is why models are so popular.
Obvious is obvious, as the kids might say.
Observations are slow, others have access to the same data and can check your work and it's far more difficult to lie using empirical facts.
Models however are also much cheaper. I'd rate models just above free online surveys, when it comes to scientific accuracy.
There is a flaw in trying to use the gains in snow/ice in Antarctica to question global warming patterns. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the rapid and substantial increase in ice is actually predictable and predicated on a warming atmosphere. It's not controversial that warmer air holds more moisture. In Minnesota we would joke that "It's too cold to snow" in January and February, and our heaviest snowfalls were almost always in the late fall or early spring. Air at 20f degrees will hold less moisture than air at 30f degrees, and both will produce snow/ice.
My intention is--to show the ambiguities and, yes, the flaws in the models.
That study is, in my opinion, quite relevant as the 'estimates' (models) used so far are off by the factor of 30. That's not 'a wee bit'; it's massive.
(As an aside, I live at 61 degrees North in Scandinavia, and we have the same winters: lots of snow dumped in spring (March) blizzards, because before that point it's often too cold for snowfall.)
It is far easier to get the results asked for using models, as the model (just like AI) only shows what it's been fed, which is why models are so popular.
Obvious is obvious, as the kids might say.
Observations are slow, others have access to the same data and can check your work and it's far more difficult to lie using empirical facts.
Models however are also much cheaper. I'd rate models just above free online surveys, when it comes to scientific accuracy.
There is a flaw in trying to use the gains in snow/ice in Antarctica to question global warming patterns. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the rapid and substantial increase in ice is actually predictable and predicated on a warming atmosphere. It's not controversial that warmer air holds more moisture. In Minnesota we would joke that "It's too cold to snow" in January and February, and our heaviest snowfalls were almost always in the late fall or early spring. Air at 20f degrees will hold less moisture than air at 30f degrees, and both will produce snow/ice.
My intention is--to show the ambiguities and, yes, the flaws in the models.
That study is, in my opinion, quite relevant as the 'estimates' (models) used so far are off by the factor of 30. That's not 'a wee bit'; it's massive.
(As an aside, I live at 61 degrees North in Scandinavia, and we have the same winters: lots of snow dumped in spring (March) blizzards, because before that point it's often too cold for snowfall.)