3 ms·

Reading the whole article gives nothing better. What was written in the whole article has nothing significant. If the study had something significant, then th

• scarmig 15y ago
  I'm curious as to where you found the actual article referencing this particular data, as it was just presented a few days ago at the AGU conference, and I'm having trouble finding the (yet unpublished?) conference notes. Alternatively, is this all an oblique way of saying both that the media sucks at reporting science and that scientists (and earth scientists in particular) need to be more approachable and accessible to the public? In which case, I agree with you 100%. Lastly, what is your point, here? Nothing controversial has been reported. Temperatures in Greenland are rising. Marginal ice will melt when temperatures rise. Ice has mass and weight. When that ice goes away, the force its weight has exerted goes away. The Earth decompresses to reach a new energetic equilibrium. And now, their study has confirmed via GPS data that, indeed, things decompress when you stop compressing them. Unless you're arguing that they made up the GPS data out of whole cloth, why the total freak out? The hyper defensive "anything that mentions temperatures changing at all is an AL GORE CONSPIRACY!!1!" really doesn't speak well of the scientific mindset of AGW denialism. The pop sci piece here doesn't even mention AGW, but we've already had 2 (current count) people come in and go into shit-flinging mode to discredit it.