Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday November 03 2015, @07:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-debate-is-open dept.

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 03 2015, @10:50PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday November 03 2015, @10:50PM (#258181)

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @12:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @12:49AM (#258217)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @02:03AM (#258238)

    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.