Is GW a hoax perpetuated by scientists?

New (online only so far) in Nature (journal). A revised determination of icemelt across the globe. It falls in my 'good news' category because they have revised downward the melt rate of Himalayan ice. Quite a bit actually, so if you weren't ready to abandon "ice gone by 2035", now you probably can

They separate grounded ice into about 23 regions and you can see which ones are steady (like Alps) and which ones are decreasing (like Alaska). Might be worth seeing your librarian to get a copy of this one.

Science marches on, notably this (rather costly) satellite stuff. GRACE satellites seem to be able to keep track of gigatons. Nifty,

I continue to hijack threads. Was actually looking for a pirate-themed smiley but no joy.

 

^ that is good news and probably explains the near record snowfall this winter and the incredible stretch of sub-zero temps we had in Jan. Oh wait, that is weather. My bad.

 

This is a funny take about the "Nature " study.Two stories in the same paper ,5 hours apart .

Ice caps not shrinking as much as once thought, new data show - CSMonitor.com

NASA satellites reveal colossal ice melt, greenhouse gasses blamed - CSMonitor.com

 

What's the funny part?

Headline wording leaves a lot to be desired, but on first read I don't notice any conflict between the content of those two articles and Tochatihu's post.

 

Maybe you had to be there?

 

As always I am more interested in the publication than what media has to say about it. Even the even-handed Christian Science Monitor. Especially, in regards to headlines.

By no means should our attention to Earth system science be reduced to a discussion of whether the media headlines written about it hold water. More than a whiff of trying to distract people from the message, and what a shame if we can do no better than that.

The message in Jacob et al. is that different places are melting at different rates, and some are not significantly different from zero by their analysis. You read the article, you see that an earlier analysis of GRACE data showed Himalaya melting. This one, using different techniques, does not. That's not all it says, but please understand I am trying to get (a few of you) interested in reading this stuff.

Anyway, we need more from you, mojo, than headlineology. We need you to take us back to your earlier critique of GRACE,

http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...es-phil-jones-confesses-climate-fraud-11.html

Was the technique wrong then because it was looking like very fast icemelt? Is it OK now because because the picture appears less dire?

 

Not my opinion.
It was a quote that came up when I searched for the author of the study which NASA referred to with a question mark.
The main criticism was the author substituted data when she didnt like the Grace results.
"Here's just one example of the kind of nonsense Velicogna considers acceptable:

"The GRACE C20 coefficients show anomalously large variability, so we replace them with values derived from satellite laser ranging."

No technical rationale... they just didn't like the large variability in the GRACE coefficients, so they ditched them and substituted something that would produce the desired results. Shameful."

 

Mojo might have instead re-quoted his list of 9 reasons why GRACE cannot possibly work to measure changes in glacial mass through time. As it is, I cannot speculate on whether he accepts these newer results, including that the Himalayan glaciars (in aggregate) appear stable.

I can only request a discussion along those lines, not force it to happen.

But now as before, I have not the expertise to discern whether the satellites do what the authors say. Just bringing the information to your attention. I'd post their figure 1 (and risk copyright violation) but it is on a different computer. not here.