Spoken like a true 0bserver. Just remember that you're talking about magnetic north, not true north.
I don't like the fact that they are basing this off of 60 years of data with an "exception" coming 20 years into their data and an exponential increase since 1980 with last 5 years having the biggest increase. However, that is just judging the information in this article and not looking at data as a whole since 1958. Cherry picking data to fit your conclusion is always a bad thing and lets all be honest that if these climate scientist didn't fit the square data into the circle conclusion, they would lose their funding. We've regressed in science because of this structure in general. How sad.
Spoken like a true 0bserver. Just remember that you're talking about magnetic north, not true north.
I don't like the fact that they are basing this off of 60 years of data with an "exception" coming 20 years into their data and an exponential increase since 1980 with last 5 years having the biggest increase. However, that is just judging the information in this article and not looking at data as a whole since 1958. Cherry picking data to fit your conclusion is always a bad thing and lets all be honest that if these climate scientist didn't fit the square data into the circle conclusion, they would lose their funding. We've regressed in science because of this structure in general. How sad.