tirsdag 6. februar 2018



Svertekampanjene/angrepene mot NASA.

For some strange reason, NASA is a popular target for many fringe cult conspiracy drivlers:

De kyniske svertekampanjene mot NASA sin klimavitenskap foregår både direkte, men og indirekte. At NASA har fikset på grafer har vi fått høre lenge. Her debunkes en av klimafornekternes mest brukte løgnhistorier.

"We rate the claim Pants on Fire."

Even fellow deniers have debunked Goddards silly hoax. And this is too funny:

Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his objection to Goddard’s claim.

.."while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word “fabrication” implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn’t exactly the case. [...] “Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication". [...] "I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better,"





Flere av angrepene på NASA oppklares her. Se og avsnittet om The Global Warming Swindle (sic)-filmen sist i del 3.


A new NASA study found that there has been a net increase in land ice in Antarctica in recent years, despite a decline in some parts of the continent. The study's lead author astutely predicted that climate science deniers would distort the study, even though it does nothing to contradict the scientific consensus on climate change or the fact that sea levels will continue to rise. 
In one study published in Geophysical Research Letters, researchers say East Antarctica is gaining three times less ice than the NASA scientists found — enough to easily tip the balance the other direction. The latest research was led by scientists at the University of Bristol and used data sets similar to those used by the NASA team, but also added in observations from the Grace spacecraft. The NASA satellite can measure minute changes in Earth’s gravitational field to watch Antarctica shed the weight of ice.

During their study period, which included data from 2003 to 2013, Antarctica as a whole added to sea level rise, they found. “In every experiment, mass loss from the west always exceeded gains in the east,” lead author Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol said in a media release.
Zwally says the problem is that East Antarctica is so enormous even tiny discrepancies can completely change the answer. “In West Antarctica, you’re looking at bigger changes over a small area,” Zwally says. “And in East Antarctica, you’re looking at smaller changes over a much bigger area.”
Zwally still stands by his 2015 study, but in an interview last week, he said nature has recently changed the equation. His team is crunching numbers from the past two years, looking at ice melting and snowfall rates in Antarctica. And they found something startling. The melt rates in West Antarctica just increased significantly. His calculations now show that the continent is in overall balance. The findings haven’t been peer reviewed yet, but he plans to present them at a science conference later this year. “In our paper we said that might happen in two to three decades,” Zwally says. “Well, this is an unpublished result, but now we’re very close to the zero line.”
Denne lille uenigheten og overskrifter om at Antarktis-ismassen totalt vokser, gir selvsagt klimafornektere vann på møllen. "So much for settled science og global warming" ljomer det i ekkokammerne deres. Så la oss oppklare:
NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study
So, how can Antarctica be gaining ice mass in a warming world where ice sheets are collapsing and the melting is predicted to increase sea levels across the globe? It turns out that the two phenomena — a growing ice sheet and warming-related melting — are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the NASA study, which was published Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology, does not disprove global warming. 
Zwally et al 2015 took an unconventional approach to assessing the mass balance of Antarctica. Unlike other studies, before and since, that used satellite altimetry or satellite gravimetric methods, Zwally’s team chose to compare net snowfall accumulation to estimated ice discharge to the ocean in a dataset that ended in 2008. In order to do this type of analysis properly, 3 main things are needed:

1. It is critical to use the most optimal corrections for instrument biases (the ICESat data used need to have the appropriate saturation bias corrections to get real-world answers that are reproducible)

2. The most-accurate densities of snow have to be used

3. The most-optimal values for changes in bedrock elevation (GIA) in response to ice sheet mass changes have to be used

As has been since determined by multiple studies (A, B, C, D, E, F and G, listed following):

1. The ICESat bias corrections used by the Zwally team were appropriate for measuring sea ice, but not for measuring high altitude land-based ice sheets like found in Antarctica (the values returned for Lake Vostok alone were so unphysical that they should have mad the entire study DOA)

2. A value for snowfall density different than that determined by decades of land-based research was used

3. The values used by the Zwally team to correct for GIA were too high by a factor of 2

As such, their results cannot be reproduced using well-established bias corrections, known snow densities and more appropriate values for GIA.

Looking at even more recent studies, per Gardner et al 2018:

"Including modeled rates of snow accumulation and basal melt, the Antarctic ice sheet lost ice at an average rate of 183 ± 94 Gt yr−1 between 2008 and 2015."

Results from the recent IMBIE Team from 2018, too new to be incorporated in the Global Warming Primer, show that Antarctic ice sheet mass losses are accelerating, tripling their contribution to global sea level rise since 2012.

Lastly, Bamber et al 2018 subtly but firmly savages Zwally et al 2015:

"Issues with the approach used for calibration of the altimetry by Zwally et al have been identified (Scambos and Shuman 2016) and an attempt to replicate the trends using similar assumptions for the physical mechanism could not reproduce the large positive balance they found (Mart´ın-Espanol ̃ et al 2017). For these reasons, we believe that the estimates from this study are likely erroneous"

The values for the Antarctic ice sheet mass balance from NASA GRACE are the most current available (to January 2017). An ever-strengthening, consilient body of research using multiple methods all point to that conclusion.



Reference studies:

A. Scambos et al 2016 - Comment on Zwally et al 2015

B. Martín-Español et al 2016 - Spatial and temporal Antarctic Ice Sheet mass trends, glacio-isostatic adjustment, and surface processes from a joint inversion of satellite altimeter, gravity, and GPS data

C. Schröder et al 2017 - Validation of satellite altimetry by kinematic GNSS in central East Antarctica

D. Martín-Español et al 2017 - Constraining the mass balance of East Antarctica


E. Gardner et al 2018 - Increased West Antarctic and unchanged East Antarctic ice discharge over the last 7 years


F. The IMBIE Team 2018 - Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017


G. Bamber et al 2018 - The land ice contribution to sea level during the satellite era


Study shows global sea ice diminishing, despite Antarctic gains
Rather, the researchers found that snow accumulation is adding more ice to East Antarctica (the huge chunk of the continent to the east of the Transantarctic Mountains) and the interior region of West Antarctica than is being lost as glaciers across Antarctica thin out. More snow accumulation is, counterintuitively, a sign of global warming; more precipitation happens when there is more moisture in the air, and more moisture in the air is a product of higher temperatures, said Elizabeth Thomas, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey.
Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.
In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. Let us consider the following differences. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass itself through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once fell as precipitation. Sea ice in Antarctica is quite different as it is ice which forms in salt water primarily during the winter months. When land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably. 

Slik ser det ut når Antarktis-isen "vokser" blir fordreid og misforstått i media:

American Thinker: "The Fraud Is Falling Apart." Conservative blog American Thinker published a blog post headlined: "Oh-oh! NASA study finds Antarctic ice cap growing." In it, American Thinker asserted that the global warming "fraud" is "falling apart." [American Thinker, 11/2/15]

The Telegraph: Antarctic Ice Growing "Despite Fears Over Global Warming." The Telegraph reported: "Antarctica's ice floes have been found to be growing faster than they are shrinking despite fears over global warming." [The Telegraph, 11/2/15]

The Daily Express: "What Global Warming?" The Daily Express published an article headlined, "What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135 billion tonnes a year, says NASA." The article asserted: "Global warming theories have been thrown into doubt after Nasa also claimed current horror predictions into future sea-level rises may not be as severe." [The Daily Express, 11/2/15]


This is climate skeptics’ latest argument about melting polar ice — and why it’s wrong

However, as I wrote about these Antarctic news stories over the past two weeks, I became aware that those skeptical of human-caused climate change (whether its existence, or its severity) had found a new argument to minimize concerns about polar ice melt. In particular, I came across numerous citations of a much-read article at Forbes by James Taylor, titled “Updated NASA Data: Global warming not causing any polar ice retreat.”

There are many problems with this claim. In effect — and as we’ll see — Taylor is falling into a long climate “skeptic” tradition of pointing toward growing sea ice around Antarctica, and thereby suggesting that this trend undermines broader concerns about polar ice melt, or climate change in general. 

So in sum: 1) total (or global) polar sea ice is in fact declining, according to both NASA and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Cryosphere Today; 2) if you analyze the Arctic and Antarctic separately — which makes more sense to do, as very different things are happening to sea ice in the two places — you realize that the Arctic sea ice decline in particular is very stark; 3) there is also bad news about the melting of ice atop land, based on data that are completely outside of this discussion, but that are perhaps the most worrying of all. 
Taylor doesn’t appear to distinguish between what’s happening to sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic. But if you pull apart these two components of the analysis — as NASA itself has recently done — then sure enough, you find a sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, a modest increase in Antarctic ice, and an overall decline in total sea ice.


Her er en annen oppklaring, og nå faller brikkene på plass. Saken var skrevet av den Exxon-sponsede tankesmien Heartland Institute:

"As the latest example, look at an op-ed in Forbes magazine written by Heartland Institute’s James Taylor (yes, that Heartland Institute). Taylor has a history of cherry-picking and distorting results from real climate scientists, and he’s doing the same thing here."

"But note how Taylor phrases it, using “global” ice. That includes Antarctic sea ice, but as I have written about over and over again, that is really unfair. Antarctic sea ice is very different than at the North Pole; Antarctica is a continent and conditions there are literally polar opposites. The southern sea ice fluctuates quite a bit year to year, and in fact wind-driven snow can be increased by global warming (warmer air can hold more moisture), so glossing over local conditions the way Taylor does is at best misleading.

And in actual fact, land ice in Antarctica is melting away extremely rapidly, and worldwide we’re losing 450 billion tons of land ice every year.


Does NASA Data Show That Global Warming Isn’t Causing a Sea Level Rise?

Dubious web sites generously provided the Internet with textbook examples of both cherry-picked data and the shameless conflation of weather with climate.

Using two years of data to make sweeping claims about trends in the global climate system, especially when such fluctuations are known and understood by science, is misleading and inaccurate, and as such we rank this claim as false.

Were Scientists Caught Tampering with Raw Data to Exaggerate Sea Level Rise?



NASAs view on sea level rise:


Attacks on climate science by former NASA staff shouldn't be taken seriously

A letter from former administrators, astronauts, and engineers at NASA expressing climate change scepticism does not deserve parity with the agency's peer-reviewed climate scientists.

We have seen many examples of climate denialists producing long lists of fake experts, for example the Oregon Petition and the Wall Street Journal 16. Now we have yet another of these lists of fake experts. 49 former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees (led by Harrison Schmitt, who was also one of the Wall Street Journal 16) have registered their objection to mainstream climate science through the most popular medium of expressing climate contrarianism - a letter. As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.

Response from NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati to Letter on NASA Climate Studies:

"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

"Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.

"If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."

MORE DEBUNKS of the 49 letter:

Breath-taking climate denial nonsense, this time aimed at NASA
"...of the 49 signatories on that letter, not one is an actual working climate scientist. That should give you pause. I’ll also note that 49 former NASA employees is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total. It’s not hard to find statistical outliers in a group that big. I knew a creationist who worked for NASA!
But really, my very favorite thing about this is the group behind the letter: a non-profit called Plants Need CO2, which, if you can believe it, actively advocates that more carbon dioxide is good for us.
Yes, once you’re done comically rubbing your eyes with your fists you can read that again. They think more CO2 is a good thing. The sheer gall of this idea is almost beyond imagining; it reminds me very strongly of the tobacco industry’s propaganda saying that smoking is good for you.
As for why this argument is weapons-grade nonsense, watch this Climate Crock video and see just how ridiculous it is:





Whats more plausible? 

1. NASA and every scientific body of the world are in on a world wide conspiracy. 

2. NASA are attacked by smear campaigns from fossil fuel interests and everyone who are feeding off of the capitalist system which was built on fossil fuels and neo liberal free marked fundamentalists and the political hacks and the lobbyists of the 1% rich who are basically attacking everything governmental and science which comes into conflict with their money flow and their anarcho capitalist dream world? 

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

Magnetic poles / Earth's magnetic field

While the Earth's magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, Earth's rotational axis shifts only a little bit, mostly in response to th...