- Thread starter
- #21
http://www.ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495
http://icesat4.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo_data/publications/Zwally-Giovinetto_SurveysInGeophysics_2011-1.pdf
Are either of these what you are looking for?
of course I love this kind of stuff. lots of detail, links to past papers, history of how things are evolving. especially when it supports and quantifies what I have been saying for years .the GRACE estimates would have to be severely clawed back as more data comes in.
Sounds like a textbook example of confirmation bias
Is it also confirmation bias when you present something that supports your position?
This article points out a different kind of bias.
The laser altimetry was sitting on the books for years before it was published. No paper was produced, although two presentations were given by Zwally that both stated that the AIS was gaining mass overall. The first has disappeared altogether, or at least I can't find it anymore and the link is broken. The second is still partially there but the graphics are gone.
Why is that? Surely this was important enough to release. We're the findings unwelcome? To the point where they just disappeared? How many other 'unwelcome' findings are sitting buried in the files so as to not give 'fodder to the skeptics'?
Thanks for looking, but no. The ones I can no longer find were more like presentations at a conference, with graphics presenting the gain and loss. One in particular stands out in my mind because the background made the statement that the AIS was gaining mass almost illegible, while the combined loss of Greenland and Antarctica was in neon. (Greenland was not being discussed other than to highlight ice loss).