According to the American Geophysical Union;
It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted...
h/t Michael
Nobody in climate science knows what GIGO means anymore? And nobody thought to go stick a thermometer in the water?
Or is it more likely that its -really- hard to get a grant if there's actual thermometers involved?
It will be a tough climb back from the extent to which the AGW fraud has permeated the western societies.
Well y'know...somebody did put thermometers under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet then postulated a buncha CO2 AGW nonsense from that...then a team of Brits dragged by hand a magnetometer across the Sheet and established there was a dirty great volcano under it.....
[quote]which had seen sensor packages attached to elephant seals.[/quote]
Big Fat Al Gore can play the Elephant seal. That would make Skinny little Suzuki a rectal thermometer for big AL… What a simulator
A little known outcome from AGW is that Employers now have another question on their applications that will measure the applicant’s commitment to science. DO YOU BELIEVE IN AGW? if yes… go to the door & hit the road
Are these the same computer models that predicted back in the 70s that we would be entering a new ice age by now.Just how gullible do these pseudo scientists think the general public is? I take that back,after all somebody elected Obama,McGuinty and that NDP idiot Mulcair.
Who are you going to believe - someone who actually made field measurements, or someone who used a computer model to predict what the measurements would be?
We can't know what we don't know. Creating a computer model to replace empirical research - or worse yet, to ignore data that would counter your thesis - isn't science, and it does not contribute to the sum of our knowledge.
Even worse, the AGW/ACC theorists* are leveraging the respect that real scientific process and honest students of natural science have earned in the minds of the voting publics. And, like any other competitor unrestrained by convention, honesty, or facts, activists and rent-seeking opportunists have displaced real scientists from the field of climate study.
*In this usage, "Theorist" is rather loosely applied here; see "Falsifiers" per Dante's Inferno, Eighth Circle, Bolgia 10 (Cantos XXIX and XXX) for a classical definition.
Grok: " Who are you going to believe - someone who actually made field measurements, or someone who used a computer model to predict what the measurements would be? "
Well, naturally, you will choose to believe whoever is telling you what you wish to hear. And we know what the "watermelon," green on the outside and red right through, wishes to hear.
Ah The Register.
Starting with a bogus headline, following with a quote from a press release [to which it doesn't link -- because it's their only source], following that with a "some had thought ... huge amounts were melting" link to a guardian article which reported GRACE satellite measurements; that is, an independent method showing melting.
In fact, the authors are correcting mainly their own model & the new results fit satellite observations --
// The model results were in contrast to the available data from satellite observations, which are supported by the new measurements. //
Unfortunate. Because this is really interesting. They have been able to measure the three main processes which cause melting, which had been theorized 20 years ago but never completely observed.
The Register mucks this up
// Twenty-year-old models [...] found to be wrong, //
From the press release
// Their results confirm a 20-year-old theory //
This stuff is fascinating --
Read the actual press release.
Visit Lars Henrik Smedsrud's webpage
Read the whole paper.
Ahh dizzy, the brainwashing really stuck well on you. So much melting that the acean level rise is unmeasurable.
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2725
Gasp! Choke! Does this imply that my computer model of Chuck Yeager's P-51, which demonstrates conclusively that had I been at the controls would have allowed me to shoot down half the Luftwaffe (before lunch), might be wrong?!?! I'm crushed.
And nobody thought to go stick a thermometer in the water?
Or is it more likely that its -really- hard to get a grant if there's actual thermometers involved?
Phantom
Bingo.
Yesteryear's enviro scam was the " ozone hole ", and I don't recall anyone going out and actually measuring the UV flux as a consequence of the " ozone hole. ", just as they, um, neglected to use actual thermometers to measure water temperatures. Measurements would ruin the scam.
Thermometers are only allowed between consenting crimatologists; they are not allowed for use with the general public.
@ Robert of Ottawa at June 26, 2012 7:24 PM
Need a Hazmat specialist to use a thermometer as it may contain mercury. Computer models probably showed it was safer for Gaia just to guess. Following safety instructions on proper use of thermometer is most likely well beyond the capability of ICCP personel.
Most people today form their opinions based on what their friends believe; actual science has very little, if anything, to do with it.
They know how they feel, and they don't want any inconvenient facts getting in the way of their preconceived notions.