re: #1060 Salamantis

What do I dispute?

Sal, I was very clear about what was completely wrong about your conclusive experiment and your conclusive results.

Since you seem to have forgotten my objections - please do me the kindness of looking at the repost and addressing them.

Your calculation assumes that ice at the poles melts at a constant rate at all times. Therefore it is wrong. The poles do not melt at a constant rate. They also refreeze with the seasons and are driven to melt by multiple forcings with feedbacks.

Therefore your “conclusive mathematics” is not conclusive because the math you are using does not apply. You are wrong because you are using the wrong math to compare the wrong system with reality. Simply loudly shouting that 2+2=17 and then yelling that this is conclusive does not for good mathematics make.

As to your experiment.

All you had was ice melting by convection. There is a lot more than just convection in the real system.

What did you use for solar forcing (the sun is the ultimate driver in the real system)? Nothing.

What did you use for the seasons? Nothing

What did you use to include the feedback from albedo loss?
Nothing.

What did you use to include the feedback from ocean saturation? Nothing

What did you use to include the feedback from trapped methane and CO2 from melting the ice? Nothing.

What did you use to include the feedback from increased industrial output?
Nothing.

What did you use to include the feedback from changing cloud/weather patterns? Nothing.

Did you account for geography? No.

Did you account for currents in air and ocean? No.

Did you account for the fact that the real ice system breaks up in complicated and punctuated ways? No.

You then go on to claim that the Earth is cooling. This is not true and it has been debunked many times here.