Polar Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Predicted…I would love to hear from the global warming cheerleaders on this one…This is why I doubt the data…
The red font represents my responses to various statements or words.
The thick glaciers covering Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than scientists expected.
The opening sentence to the article presents a statement that injects a suggestion that an absolute fact is being presented. It does not include any variations or alternate possibilities that would allow doubt, as it is presented. The title of the article is an attention grabber, which makes basically the same statement.
Ice loss from the massive ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, according to a new study.
If the trend continues, ice sheets could become the dominant contributor to sea level rise sooner than scientists had predicted, concludes the research, which will be published this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Now, there is a perfect example of the true meaning of guesswork. I immediate think of the possibility of “if not.” The word “if” represents a possibility based upon a specific scenario, and is no way to be interpreted as an absolute.
"The traditional view of the loss of land ice on Earth has been that mountain glaciers and ice caps are the dominant contributors, and ice sheets are following behind," said study co-author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine. "In this study, we are showing that ice sheets, mountain glaciers and ice caps are neck-and-neck."
But that could soon change, Rignot said, because the rate at which ice sheets are losing mass is increasing three times faster than the rate of ice loss from mountain glaciers and ice caps.
"I don't think we expected ice sheets to run neck-and-neck with mountain glaciers, which basically sit in a warmer climate, this soon," he said. "At the same time, the mass loss on the ice sheet is not very large compared to how much mass they store."
"I don't think we expected.” That is basically stating that their original predictions were not accurate. Whether the results indicate increases or decreases, inaccuracy is still inaccuracy. If you had pushed the original data, or praised their earlier predictions, you would have been wrong.
Rignot was part of a research team that also included scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
The researchers based their analysis on a comparison of two different methods to measure ice loss.
Sea level rise estimates likely to increase
Not a word that is very convincing.
One source was NASA's twin GRACE satellites, which orbit the Earth about 200 kilometers apart from each other. Small changes in the planet's gravity field can push the satellites together, ever so slightly, or pull them apart -- variations that scientists use to interpret the terrain below.
The second method combined different satellite data that measure the speed at which the ice sheets flow to the ocean, airborne measurements of the ice sheets' thickness and a regional climate model. Combining the speed and thickness measurements allowed the scientists to determine how much ice was flowing into the ocean, while the climate model allowed them to estimate how much snow was falling on the ice sheet. Subtracting one from the other produced a "mass-balance" picture of net ice loss or growth for each ice sheet.
If you believe that this method of measuring the loss of ice mass and how quickly the snow was falling is a precise method, and does not include some amount of inaccuracy, you are about three steps beyond reality with your mindset. Even the scientists know it is not exact, therefore their conclusions are not exact. There is both guesswork and predictions involved as part of developing the actual method of measuring these factors.
The two data sets overlapped for an eight-year period, from 2002 to 2010, and showed similar results. Based on that close agreement between the two measurement methods, the scientists had confidence that the full 18-year record produced by the mass-balance method was generally accurate.
That does not mean exact or precise.
“the scientists had confidence that the full 18-year record produced by the mass-balance method was generally accurate.”
“They had confidence that the method was generally accurate.”
That is like saying that the scientists think that there may be some general accuracy.
Rignot said the results are "probably going to provide more incentive for the next [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report] to revise sea level prediction a little bit upwards."
The word “probably” should never be associated with guaranteed accuracy.
“sea level predictions”
The words “sea level predictions” tells us that the scientists are guessing as opposed to having absolute knowledge.
He cautioned that it's hard to extrapolate his new results to the end of the century, because "18 years of data is not too much."
“18 years of data is not that much.”
Where is that 100 years of absolute science we are being told is the reason for believing their data results.
In its last major report, released in 2007, the IPCC predicted seas would rise between 7 and 23 inches by 2100 -- but couched that estimate with a giant caveat. The IPCC cautioned that an additional rise could come from rapid and unpredictable melting in Greenland and Antarctica, which it didn't attempt to estimate.
“between 7 and 23 inches by 2100”
Well that variation of what may or may not happen pretty much speaks for itself.
“The IPCC cautioned that an additional rise could come from rapid and unpredictable melting in Greenland and Antarctica.”
“Additional rise could come”
Admission that they do not know how much will melt, which is also an admission that they do not know how much the seas will rise.
Since that report was released, scientists have worked hard to improve their understanding of ice sheet behavior and improve estimates of future sea level rise. Many researchers now believe the sea could rise an average of 3 to 6 feet by the end of the century, with the more likely amount at the low end of that range.
“Could rise an average of 3 to 6 feet by the end of the century”
Or maybe it could not. Do people realize the immense variation that is represented by the difference between 3 and 6 feet, as it applies to what would cause such a variation?
“Improve their understanding”
To improve your understanding indicated that true understanding is not present.
An estimate relates to guesswork. To improve estimates relates to more accurate guesswork.
When you hear me, or others speak of not having complete trust in the data that is presented by these scientists, it is not because we oppose an issue, but actually question the data, itself. When you hear the terms, maybe, possibly, probably, estimate, etc., you should understand the actual meaning of those terms. They do not represent an absolute conclusion of what is happening, nor does it present without a doubt what will happen. To ignore the lack of accuracy, based upon the actual admission of that inaccuracy by the scientists, you are basing the end results to come on mere guesswork and predictions that are included with the actual proved data. Having said that, that guesswork and prediction should allow a certain amount of doubt until that doubt is remove by the presence of accuracy.
This is a single article. Now, apply this same concept of not just accepting all that comes from the scientists with their deceptive words, and you see a multitude of doubt, unless you simply are willing to accept anything that comes from them.
Vic Damico 2013