Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Fun with reality

The nice thing about reality and science is that it really doesn't pay any heed to politics, theology, and posturing. Here's the latest nail in the coffin of those who can't see global warming staring them in the face.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Gravity satellites see ice loss

Greenland is currently losing about 100 billion tonnes of ice a year.

US space agency (Nasa) scientists have undertaken a new assessment of the rate of melting occurring on the great ice sheet that covers the region.

Their data comes from satellites that detect changes in mass by monitoring tiny fluctuations in the pull of gravity as they fly over the Earth.

Scott Luthcke, from the Goddard Space Flight Center, and colleagues report their study in the journal Science.

The rate of ice loss observed using the Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) spacecraft is much lower than other recent research using the same data has suggested.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For the rest of the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6069506.stm

Those who can't quite grasp the concept of real
research and real researchers might want to look
at this:

http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/697/staff/Scott_Luthcke.html

re:
"The rate of ice loss observed using the Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) spacecraft is much lower than other recent research using the same data has suggested."

That's sure a clever way to measure ice.
Does this argue for or against global warming?
~samwik

No. It argues to different results from the same data and it is my way of reminding the global warming trolls that I care about real research ... not some preconceived conclusion. I hope Luthcke is correct.

But I would hardly call 100 billion tons per year a sign that all is well. It is less: Not insignificant.

few people argue that we are not currently in a warming period. thought some suggest that weve already past the peak and have begun cooling.

the arguement is wheither or not man caused it, or if it is going to continue to increase.

If its a man made thing, then according to the alarmist, we will all be dead within a century (somehow i dont expect to live that long anyway) and only by destroy our civilaztion can we avert this.

If its a natural event, its likely to be reversing pretty soon and then people will be looking for warmer clothes, and the alarmist will be warning everyone about a new ice age.

dehammer wrote:
"the arguement is wheither or not man caused it"

That may be the argument but it is irrelevant.

Do you argue with your wife about who started it or do you put the argument behind you and move forward?

The question, and the only question, that should be on the table is whether we, by changing our behaviours, can make the lives of future generations better or, at least, keep them from getting worse.

That would depend on wheither or not man caused it.

if man did, then by destroying our civilization, perhaps he can "save" the future generations. that is the ones that are not starved to death by the failure of our civilization or froze to death/ killed by heat waves due to lack of ability to get fuel or electricity to save them.

If man did not cause it, then there is nothing we can do about it, save to make it worse with ill concieved plans to "save" the world.

Dehammer,

That's a great plan. Sign me up for your army of death. It may well be worth joining in the destruction ourselves and make sure we target the right people. We can't trust nature to distinguish between the productive and all those undesirables. What if the only people that survive are the unemployed? We need to give nature a helping hand and some guidance.

While we are standing by and allowing our civilisation to be destroyed (so we can save the future one of course), let's use our time more constructively and nuke some Third World countries.

My only question is, 'Do I get to keep my three year old daughter or is she one of the ones that must go?' I'd appreciate if you would let me know.

Alternatively let me know that you didn't mean to write what you did or that I have misunderstood your comments.

Blacknad.

dont ask me that, ask the politicians that did that japaness accord. their the ones that are trying to destroy our civilization.

G'day all,

Eight posts and it devolved into a discussion not much to do with the original subject. I personally read dehammer's comments as sarcasm in relation to action proposed against global warming, not a real proposal to gut this generation in order to save future ones, but it did read, shall I say, a little extreme, when I first read it.

Mr Morgan raised a reasonable point, although it still was a news article (and one posted before at that).

I did like the comment:

"Because of these contrasting behaviours - mass loss in coastal regions and mass gain in elevated central regions - ice-sheet mass loss exceeds mass gain only slightly," the Toulouse-based researcher said."

That sounds a pretty balanced statement. We lost some sea ice but gained land ice. Overall, not much happened. It needs more research. It does and data that is more than a few years in duration.

If the topic is Arctic locked ice quantities or loss of sea ice, fine, but I didn't see where that had much to do with global warming aside from supposition as to what the research might mean. The news article actually raised the points about various research using similar data and coming to vastly different results.

The Goddard Institute's results says very specifically that they attempted to model the dynamics of the ice sheet on individual drainage systems rather than an attempt to measure the ice coverage as a whole. Since it is not a link to research, the reader has no idea just how they did this, why they did it that way or if it makes more sense to did it this way than the various other methods used.

This is not a bad topic to really look at climate change science. Their are several research papers. The research has been conducted since the 1950s. The issues of accuracy of data, the longevity of satellite data, the methodologies used by various researchers and a quite a few other specifics could be highlighted and debated if anyone wished to do so.

Imho, it is also rather technical, can get bogged down in details that your need considerable experience to greatly understand, and doesn't seem to establish anything in the "proof" business of global warming except that sea ice is contracting and land ice isn't.

As to the other major topic raised, whether global warming is man made or not, that one is fundamental to the whole topic of global warming but what is being discussed aside from the fact that there are more than one viewpoint about this. That isn't science and this is supposed to be a science forum after all.

There was a full page advertisement in Sydney's largest newspaper today calling on our politicians to take steps immediately to curb carbon emmissions. I would have thought that the whole point to this sort of demand is that Climate Change is man made and made by CO2, at that. If not, what is the point to any discussion about doing something about CO2? After all its not a pollutant any more than water vapour is a pollutant. It's actually pretty important. The reference in respect to the ad is www.climateinstitute.org.au for those interested by the way.

The other major Sydney paper, quite rightly pointed out, that Australia exports about four times as much carbon emmitting coal than it uses itself (mostly to China) and a major mining project is being opposed by the Greenpeace on the basis of its world implications.

I would guess the Greenpeace website probably has something about the Land and Environment Case they are running. The article included such other gems as "in Sydney the ocan could advance by as much as 150 metres in 2100". If all of this is about a natural cycle, why would Greenpeace care about a coal mine (well aside from the fact that China isn't the cleanest producer of energy in the world)?

From those two examples just from today, it would seem that whether global warming is natural or man-made is actually a fairly important part of the discussion. Unfortunately the science to discuss this is about as complex as one could get in the whole issue of global warming. It covers such a huge territory from what is a greenhouse gas, to whether CO2 causes a net rise in temperatures, to why CO2 seems to follow rises in historic temperature and not precede them, to issues of rises in CO2 when there has been cooling even in the 20th century.

It seems that this is not an issue that can realistically be discussed in this forum although the science of various aspects certainly could.


Regards


Richard

Funny you should bring up Greenpeace Ric as I never do. They have an axe to grind just as you do. I trust them as much as I do you.

How about citing NASA? Or Cambridge? Or Columbia? Or someone objective and grounded in reality?

the posts are still hopping instread of focussing on original post.

G'day,

I only mentioned Greenpeace because they were mentioned in the newspaper article I was commenting on. NASA unbiased? I'm not sure that all that many climate scientists would agree with you on that one. Dr Hansen's (the director of the Goddard Institute, NASA's Climate section) public writings have been commented on and quoted in other threads and they pretty much speak for themselves. Do they do worthwhile research? Of course. They should considering the very large funds that they receive from the Government.

I don't have an axe to grind, in my view, in relation to global warming. I'm happy to listen to anyone's point of view. If you really cared about global warming, Dan, I would think that you would also be willing to discuss the issues and not just quote news articles ad nauseum.

Personally, I thought I attempted to tackle the news article by looking at the issues involved. Some of what was said is my opinion. Dan, your lack of trust of me, is a strange comment. I don't agree with you so that makes me somehow untrustworthy. I've said this before but I'll warn you again, that sort of directed comment at an individual's integrity fails the test of participation in this forum and is again defamatory. I would thank you to refrain from any form of opinion that attacks any individual. Since your posts can be educational, well thought out and on topic, why not retain those admirable traits when it comes to global warming topics. If you disagree with what is being said, discuss the topic, not the individual that made it.

I'm happy to look at the science of climate change topics and providing we focus on the science, I remain a happy little bunny, whether the discussion is something I agree with or not.

My only "axe to grind" is scientific methodology, and climate science currently seems to be a haven for research where the scientific method should rightly be challenged and sometimes even condemned. The Mann Hockey Stick graph has been mentioned. The selective use of glaciers where other glaciers in the same region are doing quite different things, obviously known to the researchers, is another example.

I received a research paper yesterday and it is one that I can openly comment on. If you like I'll post a thread and go through why I believe it is poorly done and where the most serious flaws lie. The research is also available online, so anyone can read it in full. Of course, you are then welcome to challenge my comments and present a differing view and point out where I have erred. That is the whole idea of this forum after all.

This post related to a news article, and one that really didn't demonstrate much about global warming at that. It didn't show a loss of locked ice, only that some variations in losses and gains have been detected and being a news article it contained speculation, there was no guarantee it accurately represented the research and was lacking in detail.

The Science Journal article requires a subscription to view, however, NASA does offer some detail of the research. http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/greenland_slide_prt.htm

I personally think that the full papers should be available online at the NASA site, including the data, considering it is NASA's job to report on climate to the US Government and this research was wholly funded by the Government. If it is available through the NASA site, I couldn't find it but I would greatly appreciate if someone could show that I'm in error here.


Regards


Richard

Hiya Richard; so far, so good.

Your similar point on the God & Science thread (Origins) was well taken too.

I couldn't help but think of the Scientific American article on the shower-curtain effect, where the definition of the effect includes the phrase "regardless of the temperature of the water."

Talk about not questioning "basic assumptions;" sheesh!


~samwik

P.S. sorry, ~off topic.