4 ms·

If you're going to accuse others of politically motivated interpretation of data, the least you could do is abstain from the same activity. http://mashable.com

If you're going to accuse others of politically motivated interpretation of data, the least you could do is abstain from the same activity. http://mashable.com/2015/11/03/nasa-antarctica-mass-gain/#bN88_wOEPkqi http://mashable.com/2015/11/03/nasa-antarctica-mass-gain/#bN... TL;DR: 1. This is one measurement among many. The honest scientist considers the whole of the data, rather than cherry picking the 1 among N measurements that support his hypothesis. 2. Existence of conflicting evidence is a good reason for more, not less, research. 3. There's nothing to suggest that one set of measurements reflects a trend. The global system is complex, and the existence of surprising phenomena should be a reason to try to understand better, not an excuse to bury our heads. 4. The relationship between stability and total mass is probably not strictly positive and is certainly not linear. So even in the best case scenario, the risk of destabilization should still be studies.

mturmon 10y ago
Thanks for this. The comment you're replying to gave a link to one study of a complex phenomenon, that partially conflicts other studies. As you point out, there's not total consensus on what's happening. But the comment's suggestion that this one study settles the question of Antarctic mass loss is wrong. The linked study (Zwally et al.) uses satellite radar altimetry (ICESat) to measure height of Antarctic ice, and thereby quantify mass losses. Other studies use satellite-derived gravity (GRACE) to get more directly at mass changes. They conflict. One possible reason (among several) for the discrepancy is that the overall height of Antarctica is also changing as it rebounds from ice loss in the distant past, i.e., some of the height increase seen by Zwally et al. is due not to ice increases, but to inter-ice-age rebound of the continent beneath the ice. More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?utm_term=.86898c732394 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

mturmon 10y ago

Thanks for this. The comment you're replying to gave a link to one study of a complex phenomenon, that partially conflicts other studies. As you point out, there's not total consensus on what's happening. But the comment's suggestion that this one study settles the question of Antarctic mass loss is wrong. The linked study (Zwally et al.) uses satellite radar altimetry (ICESat) to measure height of Antarctic ice, and thereby quantify mass losses. Other studies use satellite-derived gravity (GRACE) to get more directly at mass changes. They conflict. One possible reason (among several) for the discrepancy is that the overall height of Antarctica is also changing as it rebounds from ice loss in the distant past, i.e., some of the height increase seen by Zwally et al. is due not to ice increases, but to inter-ice-age rebound of the continent beneath the ice. More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?utm_term=.86898c732394 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...