@Pansa: Really? Perhaps you find something constructive, then we can talk.
For sure - as soon as your criticism of the model has some substance. I just don't think it has.
A) As you
can see (ok, direct link does not work - you can find it under model performance), Slater's model has shown some pretty good skills in predicting the
September Mean Extent for the last 3 years.
1) That seems to be the strength of the model - it has done quite well compared to others.
2) And "Mean Sea Ice Extent" was what people were talking/arguing about ( Reply #3223, Reply #3235)
B) Then you started to argue about the "strange" Sea Ice
Extent Distribution shown in the model, especially in the Hudson.
C) But Sea Ice Extent Distribution is not necessarily a strength of the model. At least that is how I read the paragraph I have cited above. Furthermore I can't see that anyone hast claimed it is.
As far as I can remember, the model has shown some "odd" concentration distributions in the past. But that demonstrably (see A above) has not hindered it to predict the September Mean Extent quite accurately.
So does your reservation about the Sea Ice Extent Distribution in the Hudson really cast doubt on the models capacity to predict the September Mean Extent (as you were looking for some verification)?
I don't think it does. At least the results of the last three years - the timeframe in which we can compare model output and reality - do not support this idea, as it has been one of the best models out there.
If Slaters Model is way off this time wrt to Mean Sea Ice Extent & it shows a huge chunk of ice in the Hudson (where there is none), well then you would have a point. But as we have July ... let's enjoy summer first.
PS: Or to put it simple: Can you show us that Slater's Mean Extent prediction is crap based on the fact that his model predicts some areas to have 20% sea ice concentration in the Hudson by August, 29th?