You claim to know the science pretty well. I'm sure you would have no problems in finding out what has happened in the arctic over the last 12 months. If you are waiting for the IPCC report to tell you - you will be disappointed, because it won't.
I'm merely pointing out that my source (the article rather than the person) is verifiable. The IPCC leak is not. The article in The Australian is based entirely on the DM article (which is based on leaked documents that don't seem available to anyone but them).
I'm not arguing over climate change, I'm pointing out bad journalism.
Although to be fair, none of those articles are denying that man-made climate change exists. They're merely pointing out that it's not happening at the predicated rate. We're in a slow cooker rather than a frying pan. Hurrah!
Thank you for the WSJ link.
Last edited by snowqu33n; 16-09-2013 at 20:24.
You do realize the thickness of the ice matters right?
Just like that NASA link provided some explanations as to why Antarctica has more ice, I am sure that the IPCC report and subsequent reports by other scientists will also provide explanations. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that?
I don't claim to know the science, I claim to believe a majority of the world's scientists...
Apparently John Cook couldn't find the reference to 2C/decade in the 2007 report.
Here it is:
Since IPCC's first report in 1990, assessed projections
have suggested global average temperature increases
between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to
2005. This can now be compared with observed values
of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.
Waiting for an IPCC report to respond to a current fact is ridiculous. You don't need to wait for the news in the evening to find out if it rained today.
Sometimes a picture says a thousand words.
'The second claim that the Arctic sea ice is now 60 percent higher over August 2012 is technically true but extremely misleading. In the summer of 2012 Arctic sea ice hit a record low. Given just how extreme it was, it’s not too surprising that it would not be as extreme this year. As you can see by the graph here, the sea ice extent (which essentially represents how much area is covered by ice) was incredibly low last year and is still lower than average this year. Rose makes this seem like the ice is on a huge rebound, but it’s more like getting a D- after getting an F on a test. Sure, it’s better, but it ain’t necessarily good.'
Last edited by BH-KatiesMum; 16-09-2013 at 21:14. Reason: rude
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!