UN Climate Report Fails To Capture Arctic Ice: MIT

An anonymous reader writes "The United Nations' most recent global climate report 'fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends,' says a new research from MIT. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, forecasts an ice-free Arctic summer by the year 2100. However, the Arctic sea ice may be thinning four times faster than predicted, according to Pierre Rampal and his research team of MIT's Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS)."

Comments

Re:Doesn't matter what they report

[Doc Ruby]

Evidently you may not.

Some people don't call it "global warming", because idiots like you couldn't stop saying that extreme cold in Winter somehow proved it wrong, even when the overall average of the globe is indeed warming.

You can't spell "holes". And there were, and still are, ozone holes. Only idiots like you said spacecraft "punctured" the atmosphere, though spacecraft exhaust does destroy atmospheric ozone and contributed to the holes. But it was spraycan propellant and coolant CFCs that mainly destroyed the ozone. Until we banned them and let them regenerate. Now they're a lot better. Idiots like you denied they existed, and now deny they ever existed, or that we could affect them by either exhausting CFCs or banning them. Just like idiots like you now say we can't affect the climate by industrial exhaust. But in fact the recent experience with ozone holes shows we do.

Idiots like you are the ones constantly believing religious nuts proclaiming constantly changing doomsday dates.

You might add that BS about volcanoes, but it's just another lie created by polluter think tanks for idiots like you to repeat.

So no, you may not. In future, do not.

Re:Doesn't matter what they report

[xenobyte]

Well, I think the Global Warming cult started this by categorically denying that the Sun had anything to do with the Earths climate whatsoever... I mean it's obvious that it doesn't contribute any heat, not any ionization of the upper atmosphere, so better leave it completely out of the equation...

No, it's not a joke. In one of IPCC's reports they actually conclude that the Sun has no significant influence on Global Warming, which is more than stupid. All warming comes from the Sun, and if you removed it the temperature would plummet to a few degrees above absolute zero within a very short time, greenhouse effect or not. It is thus equally obvious that if the Sun provides less warming, the temperature would drop, also regardless of any greenhouse effect. Similar if the Sun should provide more warming, temperature would go up.

As we have several periods of significant climate fluctuations in history and no known human or geological causes, it is obvious that the reason must be external, i.e. the Sun. So as long as the correlation between the Sun and the climate during these periods isn't explained, it is stupid to explain any variations seen today as caused by humans only. I'm not saying that humans have no influence but I'm saying that the simple and obvious answer is that the same factors that caused the historical fluctuations are at play again. It's Occam's Razor.