Debunked: Most recent NASA study shows ice growth in Antartica

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The release of a 'new' report has conservative outlets claiming it supersedes 'previous' reports claiming ice loss in Antartica.


But the 'new' report is only based on data up to 2008.

The 'old' studies that confirm ice loss are based on data up to 2013, making this 'new' study pretty much moot.

Article from Dec. 2014

 

skephu

Senior Member.
That's not correct. The second article you quote is only about West Antarctica while the first is about the whole of Antarctica.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
the whole topic of whether Antarctica either gaining or not gaining ice/snow/mass is a complicated one

not surprising as the climate is a complicated system after all - and the Antarctic "ice" is one small/marginal component

it seems some parts are gaining "ice", some parts aren't

it seems a general warming trend will promote more precipitation (simple physics)

but as with all scientific endeavour there are uncertainties, especially at the "margins"

but what is certain is that the anti-science brigade will try and get as much mileage out of it as possible

it is a shame when "uncertainty" in one aspect of a theory, is used as evidence that the whole theory is wrong

it is a classic "denier" modus operandi
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Here's a more recent article by Phil Plait:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html

He claims that data since 2008 show an increased ice loss in West Antarctica and claims that this is enough to overcompensate for the gains, so he claims there is now a net loss.

But this is just a blog post, not a peer-reviewed paper, so I wouldn't take it for granted.
The people at skepticalscience.com are still thinking about what to say about the newly published study.
 

Henk001

Senior Member.
Those conservative outlets use -- as usual -- the over simplified reasoning: global warming = global melting (in the sense that ice should vanish everywhere)
From the NASA article about this study of Zwally et. al.:
Directly coupling warming to increasing ice mass.
and:
Finally:
As an example: the net gain of 112 Gt over 1992 to 2001 has an uncertainty of 55%

So what are we dealing with here? A study that challenges other studies about whether Antarctica is at this moment gaining or losing ice. It seems to depend on what measuring technique/instrument you use. The Grace satellite measurements f.i. show a declining trend with around 2008 a change from net gain to net loss (http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/), Zwally et.al. show a declining trend as well saying this change from gain to loss could occur around 2035. Neither of the cases would prove or disprove global warming. 9870782ad3f13a167af05cc05b47dc9d.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
That's not correct. The second article you quote is only about West Antarctica while the first is about the whole of Antarctica.
Thanks for pointing that out; but it's still based on data 5 years older, and the 2013 report noted accelrating ice loss which would have (I'm assuming, do the maths if I'm wrong) outweighed any gain noted 5 years earlier.
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
Related:

NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612


 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
Another article that tells the full story:
http://www.popsci.com/yes-parts-ant...m-to-be-growing-no-global-warming-is-not-over
And another that describes the precarious state of the Antarctic ice.
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/...antarctic-ice-sheet-raise-sea-levels-3-meters
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
That's not correct. The second article you quote is only about West Antarctica while the first is about the whole of Antarctica.
Revisiting this point; his quoted statement mentions specifically “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”, so I'm not so sure that's correct, especially as the study based on more recent data showed increases in loss rates.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
However, I don't know if they were for the exact same locations as what he was talking about.

Presumably he made this statement recently, but was he accounting for the data that went up to 2013, or was that statement only about earlier studies that went up to 2008? And if so, what was the point of this study being released for public consumption at this time and in this way?
It's a pedantic technicality, only of interest to climate specialists specifically studying melt rates in Antartica pre-2008, that has been made pretty much irrelevant by the studies done more recently which address the only thing the general public wants to know - ie. 'how bad is it NOW?'

In terms of public consumption on facebook feeds it's completely counter-productive and being used by rabid partisans as ammunition to gleefully mock those who accept the consensus, while they at the same time dismiss all his qualifying remarks and the studies based on actually relevant years.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
that has been made pretty much irrelevant by the studies done more recently which address the only thing the general public wants to know - ie. 'how bad is it NOW?'

In terms of public consumption on facebook feeds it's completely counter-productive and being used by rabid partisans as ammunition to gleefully mock those who accept the consensus, while they at the same time dismiss all his qualifying remarks and the studies based on actually relevant years
especially as the study based on more recent data showed increases in loss rates
This study shows increases in loss rates too. It says in 20 years the losses will overtake the gains.

As far as FB, i thought everyone already knew (or thought) Antarctica was gaining ice. Isnt that one of the arguments from 'deniers'?

Real scientists dont care about FB or public perception. They care about the data. (Even though the data doesnt sound that rock solid-no pun intended- since we have to wait for the new machine in like 2015 that will be able to measure more accurately). I think the study is fine for what it is, it's not the scientists fault the public will see only what they want to see. That happens all the time anyway.

To me, a neutral observer, this study says "yes parts of Antarctica are gaining ice, but he parts that are losing ice are losing ice faster than we thought and in 20 years the losses (loss rate) will overtake the gains (gain rate) which are pretty consistent each year"
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
As far as FB, i thought everyone already knew (or thought) Antarctica was gaining ice. Isnt that one of the arguments from 'deniers'?
Yes, which makes getting the truth through much harder because they're crowing in victory over this newest misrepresentation of reality (by the secondary outlets, not the source).
Real scientists dont care about FB or public perception. They care about the data.
Yeah I fully support that, but it's a relatively obscure and technical quibble between specialists, I question why it's gotten so much exposure.

It just irks me is all.
I am irked.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
I think what it shows, is that a vast number of "deniers" still haven't moved away from simply looking out of their kitchen window and saying

"look it's snowing - ergo no global warming"

the "Inhofe snowball" paradigm

they simply don't understand the initial starting parameters of the problem - i.e. "global"

they will say they do - but I think deep down they simply don't
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later] 9/11 137
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's Analysis of Slag Residue from WTC Debris 9/11 20
Dan Wilson Debunked: Steven Crowder: The AIDS epidemic was a hoax Health and Quackery 9
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top