3 ms·
You 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
by gwright 14y ago
You 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