4 ms·
You are confusing long-term climate with 'catastrophic man-made global warming'. The data record in the original article is about recent temperature trends and
by gwright 14y ago
You are confusing long-term climate with 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.
The data record in the original article is about recent temperature trends and not about climate trends on a geological time-frame.
No one doubts that the earth has been both warmer and colder in the past (i.e. hundreds of thousands or millions of years).
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoNot confusing it at all. This last year, we've broken records for warmth, as witnessed by millennial ice formations melting. This is as fast as you can get. Blame anyone you like, but its useless denying we're in a shockingly abrupt warm period.
- gwright 14y agoYou can't point to a change in one area of the earth and conclude something about the entire earth. I assume you were commenting on decrease in Arctic ice but why is that more important than the record amount of Antarctic ice? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic...)
- anon1385 14y agoBecause the volume of arctic sea ice lost is much larger than the volume of antarctic sea ice gained. Also, an increase in antarctic sea ice was something predicted by even some of the earliest global warming climate models, so it is not in anyway contrary to what climate scientists think is happening/going to happen to the climate.
- gwright 14y agoWhich leads us back to HadCRUT 4, a global temperature record, which seems to show that the actual climate isn't matching the climate model predictions. So, if the models can't provide effective predictions it would seem as though the 'science' based on those models isn't exactly 'settled'.
- MaysonL 14y agoI'll see your one chart, and raise you 10: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4657540 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4657540