Thanks, Larry!

Not only is this legit, adjusting and improving models is part of the ongoing process to upgrade all weather/climate models with time to improve them.

Even weather models are still being fine tuned with slight changes in some of the equations that make a tiny but positive difference. You're somebody that has followed weather models for decades and know from experience that individual solutions in the ensemble of the same model can show a huge disparity in the outcome that amplifies with time.

You've posted here before about the operational model(1 solution) not being as reliable as the ensemble(average of many). The reason for this flaw is that no 1 individual model has all the perfect equations to represent the atmosphere best in every situation.

The equations/calculus that we use to represent the processes might be consistent with the known physical laws but there are relationships and dynamics going on that we STILL DON'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.  If we did, then we'd need just 1 operational model that would do best all the time.

Same thing with CLIMATE models, although the relationships are different. Just because the time frame is much longer, does not mean its that much tougher to predict (many elements are EASIER to predict) but there is some of the amplification of errors growing with time happening there too. 

Some of the areas that currently are NOT understood well enough to be fully/accurately dialed into the latest climate  models:

1. Photosynthesis!

 Our discussion about the Summer weather in the US Cornbelt highlights this one. Global climate models are NOT predicting this area well because of their flawed understanding of the dynamics.                   

Global warming might not happen quite as fast as we thought – here’s why

Plants will absorb more carbon dioxide than predicted, meaning models could be overestimating the speed which the planet will heat up 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/17/plants-absorb-carbon-dioxide-photosynthesis-trinity-college/

Warmer Winters in the Midwest but cooler than expected/predicted Summer's.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/102980/#103165

    +++++++++++++++++

Another huge uncertainty:

2. Clouds

Clouds in the sky provide new clues to predicting climate change

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-clouds-sky-clues-climate.html

Toward reduction of the uncertainties in climate sensitivity due to cloud processes using a global non-hydrostatic atmospheric model

https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-018-0226-1

With time and additional observations, we gain new insights/understanding and SHOULD BE dialing that into model equations to get better solutions.

Sadly, models are being used for political posturing more than science in today's world.

Many entities take the most extreme climate models below and call it "business as usual if we don't change anything". In reality they are a worst case scenario outcome.

Note the range between the highest and lowest temperature forecast with time. It's enormous!

Which one do you believe?

Most people shouldn't have their own opinion because they don't understand the science and equations and process..........so they believe somebody else or more likely, use the one that fits with what they want to believe. 

This is exactly what dominates climate science today. People putting all their faith in flawed climate models.........the ones they need to be valid in order to support their position.

That's solid evidence in some of the flaws in climate modeling.

+++++++++++++++

Back to what's going on in Antarctica with the melting ice. If it's something we didn't expect, it means we should learn something and use that to adjust climate models. 

Note that one side will do their usual arm waving and pointing out all anomalies, even those that are natural as meaning the warming is WORSE than we thought and means and even bigger catastrophe..........while always ignoring other evidence that contradicts that.

Antarctica's ice melt isn't consistent, new analysis shows

Sea-level predictions may need adjustment

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210201115945.htm

++++++++++++

Is this yet another example of the  Boy who cried wolf(alarmist crying climate crisis)?

If you remember, the wolf eventually came in the story.

So there are 2 lessons.

1. If you keep screaming climate crisis, cherry picking extreme data that is not authentic to the scientific method and consistently being very biased to one side, you lose credibility and nobody other than like minded people believe you any more.  

2. For those that stop believing in the potential extreme because of so much scientific nonsense(climate crisis around every corner)..........BEWARE!  When you shut that potential down completely and lose objectivity, IF the extreme scenario DOES develop your blind eye will cause you to miss it. 

3. So we have 2 sides that want to believe in opposite scenario's that look for reasons to be right, the ANTI scientific method. We should always be looking for reasons for why we MIGHT BE wrong…….because it’s inevitable that unless we’re a  god, we WILL be wrong sometimes. The sooner we acknowledge being wrong, the sooner we can turn ignorance about something into authentic knowledge and new learning.