SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A recent study by NASA seems to contradict some of the currently accepted knowledge about global warming and glaciers. It found that increased ice melting in Antarctica is offset by increased snowfall, meaning that the continent's glaciers are posting a net gain in mass, and are not contributing to rising sea levels.
Contrary to some sensationalist headlines about the "end of global warming", the study's authors urged caution.
"We're essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge," in other parts of the continent, [Jay] Zwally said.
"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," he explained in a NASA announcement.
Editors Note: As best as I can tell, this is the NASA study referenced in the article above. Note that it is from October, 2014.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Tuesday November 03 2015, @07:59PM
This only proves that we know nothing, and we will know even less tomorrow.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:01PM
This only proves that we know nothing
I'm not so sure about that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @11:32PM
Now we know the name John Snow is posting under. :-)
(Score: 5, Informative) by gman003 on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:14PM
With the sheer number of studies being made, you're almost sure to find some measurements that go against the general trend of global warming and ice melt.
This particular study was of snowfall accumulation. Which is not a 1:1 with ice - in particular, the way snow compacts into ice isn't well-known, and figuring out how much ice is being made from just these measurements is extremely imprecise.
Actually, that's a bit incorrect as well. Sending people out with rulers to measure snow depth over an entire continent is infeasible, particularly when that continent is Antarctica. This used satellite altimetry - having a satellite measure the distance between it and the ground. Other studies have used satellite gravimetry - measuring the force of gravity to determine the amount of mass beneath it, and those studies have universally shown a decreased density in polar ice.
In other words, these measurements could be explained by Antarctic snow being "fluffier" than previously. Lower density would allow for lower mass while still increasing volume. Which is, in fact, a possibility the authors of the study raised. They also point out that, even if it is compacting to ice at the predicted rates, the snowfall has been pretty constant across the continent, while icepack melt is accelerating. (Their measurements only covered 1992-2008, and the rate of melt acceleration actually exceeded their extrapolations).
Do we know everything? Hardly. But we know more than enough to take some action on the issue.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:50PM
You mean, the ones not adjusted to show said general trend? ;)
(Score: 4, Informative) by gman003 on Tuesday November 03 2015, @09:46PM
Oh, you mean like the USGS temperature data? Where, if you take out the "corrections" for different measurement methods used in historical data, the warming is actually HIGHER than it is with the "corrected" data?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 03 2015, @10:50PM
That's a classic problem whenever you're studying something big and complicated. What tends to happen is:
Supporters - "If X happens, then Y will follow, according to our theory!"
(six months later)
Supporters - "Well look at that: X happened, then Y happened. I guess we're right."
Deniers - "No, you aren't, because of Z."
(six months later)
Supporters - "Well look at that: X happened again, and Z didn't affect things like it did the last time, and Y still happened. I guess that shows we're right."
Deniers - "No, it doesn't, because of W."
(repeat as needed)
There's an alternate form of this which has Supporters constantly coming up with additional factors that prevent the Deniers from conclusively disproving their theory by using failed tests.
What actually ends the debate on a topic is not one side being proven right or wrong. What ends it is one side losing funding and apparent respectability - if somebody (let's call them "Exxon") wants to pour lots of money into keeping a debate alive indefinitely in the public mind, they can successfully do so. And that's why Young Earth Creationists and the like still roam among us today.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @12:49AM
It's more like this:
Unscrupulous businessman - "I have a useless product, X, which nobody will buy because it's expensive and useless. People prefer product Y which is out of patent and the competition is making for cents on the dollar."
Advisor - "Looks like a solution looking for a problem. We can call it Problem Z."
Unscrupulous businessman - "How do I create the problem Z?"
Advisor - "Define problem Z to be a constellation of existing conditions that people generally take no notice of. Blow it out of proportion and blame product Y as the cause. They will then buy Product X, because everyone loves a good placebo."
Unscrupulous businessman - "Ok, easy, done"
Advisor - "I warn you though, you will have at on average 2-3 years to get rid of your excess product stock before people start to wake up and come after you with pitchforks."
Unscrupulous businessman - "That should be just enough time for me to sell my stock out and let someone else take the blame."
Advisor - "Exactly"
And a few months later a bunch of scientists and think tanks are quoted in bold on the paid-for-media: "Exposed, Product Y is the work of the devil, causes Problem Z. Symptoms of problem Z include sneezing, farting, occasional itch, belching and noticing cold or warm weather."
A few months after that: "Amazing: Product X cures Problem Z"
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @02:03AM
Imagine if the global warming researchers were in charge of SETI, just considering the endless news releases we would get blows my mind.
"Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out Satellites?"
"Now we did. Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out pulsars?"
"Now we did. Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out reflections from space debris?"
"Now we did. Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out computer error?"
"Now we did. Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out a hoax?"
...
If there is the need to suggest these other possibilities to someone trained in science, it indicates something is wrong.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:42PM
No, it proves we are screwing up the planet in ways we don't fully understand.
Skeptics will say, "I'm not doing anything about it until you prove we know EXACTLY how we are screwing it up."
I imagine network and security administrators deal with this kind of thing all the time.
PHB: "Can you install my doohickey on the network? It makes sales presentations shinier."
IT: "I'd like to study it first to know if it's safe."
PHB: "But I need it in 1 hour; clients are coming. Until you prove it's bad, I insist you install it now! We need shiny sales presentations or the company will die! Gartner told me so."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday November 04 2015, @12:55AM
Skeptics will say, "I'm not doing anything about it until you prove we know EXACTLY how we are screwing it up."
Let's face it, your stereotype of "skeptics" makes more sense than you do. The huge problem here is that we don't know that "not screwing up" the planet is better. After all, there are more than seven billion people. The world will be screwed up no matter what. We need to figure which ways are better, not just for the world, but ourselves as well.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday November 04 2015, @01:23AM
They used a new measuring tool, and they got different results than the older tools. How do you go from that to "we know nothing"? Maybe there are things you just don't want to know?
You're sitting in a bar. You count the money in your pocket three times. The first two times you get $52.55. The third time, it's $42.53. You throw up your hands and say, "money is a mystery, managing my finances responsibly is a waste of time, I should just blow everything on hookers!" Now, maybe you should blow everything on hookers, we can't rule out that possibility, but the way you arrived at your decision is logically suspect. And the kind of hookers that you can get for $42.53 will probably make you regret the decision either way. Right now, human civilization is that guy at the bar.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday November 04 2015, @08:40AM
sudo mod me up