Oh NASA


#1

“According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said.


#2

Then what’s causing the sea level rise?


#3

Maybe it really is global warming–each degree hotter the water is, the more volume it takes up.


#4

We are losing ice from the north polar cap. However, it is good to hear the southern one is stable.


#5

I’d love to see an analysis of how much is due to humans using below ground water at such a fast rate. We’re using it much faster than rain can replenish it. It ends up in the atmosphere and comes down as rain. Most of it must end up in oceans.


#6

#7

Shhh.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/26/arctic-sea-ice-bounces-back/

These people compare headlines to actual data.


#8

The global warming term is referring to long term trends not one year.


#9

You mean the data they’ve edited 13 times in the last 3 years? I posted before the news article from decades ago that put the earth’s average temperature as higher than today.
What changed is they went back and revised all the historical data.

NYT says:

“Marking another milestone for a changing planet, scientists reported on Wednesday that the Earth reached its highest temperature on record in 2016, trouncing a record set only a year earlier”

What actually happened, 2016 beat 2015 by 0.01 degree while the measurement error is 0.1 degree. Does that sound like 2016 trounced past 2015? This is dishonest reporting and sensationalism to advance a cause.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/nyt-hid-numbers-hottest-year-record/

Oh, and the earth was hotter with sea levels 20-30 ft higher 115,000 years ago. I wonder if humans caused that.


#10

Year over year comparison makes less or no sense for climate change. The global warming issue we focus on today is actually the warming caused by human activity. It is different from what happened 115,000 years ago. The issue today would cause a vicious cycle with irreversible damage, while the one 115,000 years ago was corrected once the earth orbital parameters changed.

For global warming research, there is no persecution for different opinions. I believe all scientists are speaking their minds, and all possible researches are published regardless of their opinions. Under this setting, there are significant more researches supporting the human caused global warming. I am inclined to think that is the favorable thesis.

There are always different opinions. Even for general relativity, once in a while, you’ll see a few scientists trying to prove that wrong. That’s healthy, and that’s how science works. But we cannot just totally ignore the most widely accepted theories just because there are a few objections.


#11

Human is part of the world. Human should not try to be the ruler or savior of the world.

Dinasaur used to rule, now the human. Human race may not be immortal. Human race may have its life. Enjoy the world. Humans!

We can study the climate and the earth and the space. More knowledge is good. Climate research better be studied by researchers at the university and open to professors and students. Secret and low quality government researchers should go work for Amazon.

Just like any other scientific research, climate research needs to be open and accessible, needs to be held to the same scientific standard


#12

How much future funding would a researcher get if they said there’s no global warming due to humans?

You say year-year doesn’t make sense, but the media sensationalizes and misleads the public with year-year comparisons. So the public thinks they are informed, but they really aren’t. They made it sound like 2016 was significantly warmer than 2015 while the delta was 10% of the margin of error.

If you want to talk about longer-term data, why have they had to edit the data so many times to show warming? Why were articles published decades ago that said the earth’s average temp is higher than it is today? We accept their theory was fact, but their models stopped being accurate decades ago. Based on current CO2 levels, their models predicted we should be multiple degrees warmer today than we actually are. Our understanding of climate science is about where medicine was when they thought you put leeches on people to remove bad blood.

The fact is the earth’s climate has always been changing and always will be. We’re lucky that right now it’s favorable to humans. It won’t always be that way. We’d be better off focusing on how to live in a broader variety of climates.


#13

Some “scientists” did get funding from coal industry and published some fake science supporting climate change denial. So it’s possible to get funding to poke holes in the current theory.

This kind of conspiracy theory is counter productive. Does smoking lead to lung cancer? Will scientists be able to publish if they say otherwise? How about proving the earth is flat? Or that evolution is nonsense?

If they have the proof and the reasoning is sound of course they can get their ideas out. Most math and physics papers are out on the internet before they appear on journals. I suppose many other fields are similar.


#14

I actually think a paper showing no global warming due to human will not affect any funding, as long as it follows all the scientific methodologies. In fact, that will boost the author(s)’ reputation when it sends a shock wave through the community. The persecution we’ve seen in race and gender research isn’t from the scientific community. It mostly comes from the general population.

I have long lost faith in the media. However, I always believe many people(including you and me) on this forum can look past all the hypes from the media and focus on facts and logic.

It’s not uncommon to edit the data whenever errors were discovered or improvements were made. I even found errors in my advisor’s PhD thesis when I was in the graduate program. He’s from a top ranking program in this country. It is good to make no mistakes at all, but it’s hard to do in reality. That’s why consensus or percentage of the research matters. Modeling to predict what’s coming next is extremely difficult, as in short term it appears to be more random. It is just like a coin toss, you cannot predict reliably what’s coming next, but you can predict the output statistically.

I agree earth’s climate will always change. There isn’t any guarantee it will be always livable. But if we find something we can act on to delay the inevitable, we should try it. The consequence of otherwise is too devastating.


#15

How many years did science say smoking doesn’t cause cancer? How many years did science say eating fat is bad for us and sugar is ok? Science used to say tons of stuff that now we know isn’t true. If science clearly said the earth is warming, then there’d be zero need to edit historical data to prove the point. If CO2 was causing warming, then their models predicting it would have worked. Instead, the models didn’t work. The only “science” behind this is a bunch of people getting together and deciding to alter historical data to get the conclusion they are paid to get.

What does NASA do these days except publish info on climate change? If it’s a non-issue, then almost everyone at NASA would lose their jobs. Who at NASA is going to publish a paper that says their main reason for existing as an org isn’t even needed?

Why do all the data error corrections point to global warming being worse? If it truly was data errors, then I’d expect some corrections in each direction. Instead, all their corrections go in the same direction that supports the conclusion they want.


#16

Even scrutinized by peers, Duke still faked data for EPA research. Scientists are humans, sometimes they do lie. People need to ask questions and not blindly and religiously believe in them.


#17

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#1c3bed9b65d4

This one is interesting since it tries to say greenhouse gases causing global warming is as obvious as smoking and lung cancer.

It’s interesting they say the rate of warming is faster than any period, but the yearly data says the warming is within measurement error.


#18

https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/the-study-that-helped-spur-the-us-stop-smoking-movement.html

What’s interesting is air pollution increase matches the cigarette increase and cancer increase too. Then in 1990, we passed the clean air act. Lung cancer started to decrease. Was it due to less smoking breathing cleaner air every day?


#19

Too lazy to read up on this topic. Nature is a cycle. Climate should be likewise, from cold to hot, then hot to cold. Since earth has recovered from extreme cold (glacial age) that killed the dinosaur, we should be moving towards extreme hot. How hot, have no idea. Humans might be speeding up the process. Can we slow down the process? Doubt we can reverse the natural process.


#20

Ok guys. We’re missing the point here. If the sea level is rising, who will be hired to keep the houses safe and dry? And what are their stock symbols?