Map Makers Show Greenland Sections As Ice Free To Please AGW Advocates

bitterlyclingin

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
423
Points
98
The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.

But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick. It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images


JammieWearingFool: Atlasgate: 'A Killer Mistake That Cannot Be Winked Away'
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Typical.

Huxterism. That is all it is and all it has ever been.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,862
Reaction score
10,671
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
The global warming propagandists are as well organized as the communist party. Thanks to the cooperation of crooked politicians, extortionists, pseudo scientists, slobbering left wing media and a recruited army of goggle eyed volunteers they have all the bases covered for the final downfall of capitalism. So they think. They forgot about the internet and alternate sources of information not to mention angry Americans frustrated about the high cost of energy. If it wasn't for that pesky document, the US Constitution, that keeps getting in the way of the revolution we would be in even deeper shit than we are today. We'll see what happens in Nov. of 2012.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
hahaha. 15 percent decrease? wouldnt that convert into like a meter of sea level rise?

as usual it isnt the original mistake (cribbing from wilipedia) it is the denial of making a mistake thats going to hurt. what are the odds that a bunch of other mistakes are going to be found now that the spotlight is on?
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
hahaha. 15 percent decrease? wouldnt that convert into like a meter of sea level rise?

as usual it isnt the original mistake (cribbing from wilipedia) it is the denial of making a mistake thats going to hurt. what are the odds that a bunch of other mistakes are going to be found now that the spotlight is on?
Mistakes? Methinks to these people, the only mistake they acknowledge is getting caught in their deliberate lie.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
hahaha. 15 percent decrease? wouldnt that convert into like a meter of sea level rise?

as usual it isnt the original mistake (cribbing from wilipedia) it is the denial of making a mistake thats going to hurt. what are the odds that a bunch of other mistakes are going to be found now that the spotlight is on?
Mistakes? Methinks to these people, the only mistake they acknowledge is getting caught in their deliberate lie.
come on now. no matter how big the error, there will be a complex and plausible chronology of events fed to the public that totally exonerates all parties involved except the sceptics that tried to score points for big oil.
 

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
514
Points
155
The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.

But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick. It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images


JammieWearingFool: Atlasgate: 'A Killer Mistake That Cannot Be Winked Away'
LOLOLOLOL......you retards are priceless....

So what did happen? The Times Atlas of the World, which BTW is not a peer reviewed science journal, seems to have mistakenly exaggerated ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet and a whole bunch of scientists from various places criticized their recent edition saying that Greenland is indeed losing ice but not quite that fast. If, as you dingbat denier cultists believe, there is a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists to exaggerate the climate change crisis, why did all these scientists insist that the ice loss was less than the Atlas showed? The fact is, they are doing their jobs and striving for accuracy, as almost all scientists do.

Greenland is still losing ice mass at an accelerating rate.



Accelerated Ice Loss from Greenland
Mar 30th, 2010
(excerpt)

How do we know Greenland has been losing ice on balance? Data from two satellite missions have independently led to the same conclusion. ICESat has repeatedly measured the elevation profile of the Greenland Ice Sheet in great detail; changes over time, combined with estimates of ice compression and density, have allowed scientists to track changes in mass.Separately, the GRACE mission has provided a direct measure of mass change through time, through its unique “scale in the sky” capabilities, and is the basis for the 2004-2007 average annual loss estimate shown here.1
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,190
Reaction score
35,610
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.

But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick. It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images


JammieWearingFool: Atlasgate: 'A Killer Mistake That Cannot Be Winked Away'
LOLOLOLOL......you retards are priceless....

_A06_1-660x726.jpg[/img]

Accelerated Ice Loss from Greenland
Mar 30th, 2010
(excerpt)

How do we know Greenland has been losing ice on balance? Data from two satellite missions have independently led to the same conclusion. ICESat has repeatedly measured the elevation profile of the Greenland Ice Sheet in great detail; changes over time, combined with estimates of ice compression and density, have allowed scientists to track changes in mass.Separately, the GRACE mission has provided a direct measure of mass change through time, through its unique “scale in the sky” capabilities, and is the basis for the 2004-2007 average annual loss estimate shown here.1


So.....you'll be pleased to learn that phrenology is making a comeback.
 

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
514
Points
155

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
Oh, my. Rolling Thunder is having himself a little meltdown. Don't worry, Mr. Thunder. This winter everything will freeze back in place. There's no place for the "glacier" to go. It's love in a mist.
 

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
514
Points
155
Oh, my. Rolling Thunder is having himself a little meltdown. Don't worry, Mr. Thunder. This winter everything will freeze back in place. There's no place for the "glacier" to go. It's love in a mist.
The glaciers "go" into the ocean, moron. Ice loss is accelerating as measured by satellites, so no, dimwit, it doesn't "freeze back in place" in the winter. Did you flunk fourth grade or did your momma drop you on your head?
 

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
514
Points
155
So here's the real story. The 'worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists who are trying to exaggerate global warming' (that all you deranged denier cultists believe in) somehow got their wires crossed and came out in droves to denounce the sloppy work in the Times's atlas and affirm that it was not based on their scientific findings. Greenland is losing ice mass at an increasing rate but not that fast.

Times Atlas publishers apologise for 'incorrect' Greenland ice statement
20 September 2011
(excerpts)

The publishers of the Times Atlas were forced to admit on Tuesday that they were wrong to claim the Greenland ice pack had shrunk by 15%, as Arctic scientists rounded on the company for misinterpreting data and failing to consult them. The humiliating climbdown for HarperCollins – part of Rupert Murdoch's publishing empire – came after key sources of data on the Greenland ice denied that their research, cited by the Times Atlas, warranted the claims.

Experts at the US's main research body for the Arctic, the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said their estimates showed that the Times Atlas was wrong. In a statement, NSIDC said: "[We have] never released a specific number for Greenland ice loss over the past decade...The loss of ice from Greenland is far less than the Times Atlas brochure indicates." They joined experts from the UK's Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge, who criticised the Times Atlas for failing to consult researchers before publishing the claims. But claims about ice can be slippery – although Greenland has been losing ice mass, and the area covered by ice is gauged to be smaller than in past decades, to put a precise figure on the loss is difficult, as ice cover can change from year to year and seasonally, and depends on the volume of ice as well as its extent. Although the amount of ice lost is likely to be about 200 cubic kilometres per year, this is still tiny compared with the enormous extent of the ice, at about 2.9m cubic kilometres in total, according to data from the Scott Polar Research Institute. Although ice loss is accelerating, it could still take centuries for the Greenland ice cap to melt away – if a 15% loss in 10 years were true, it would mean that all of the key climate change models would have to be drastically redrawn.

Scientists are confident that the observed loss of Arctic ice – which can be graphically illustrated in the retreat of some of the island's biggest glaciers and the break-up of thinning sea ice, for instance – is a result of the observed warming temperatures of the past decades.

Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute, said he and fellow researchers had examined the atlas and found that "a sizeable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered". He added that there was "to our knowledge no support for [the 15% ice reduction] claim in the published scientific literature." Although a loss of 0.1 per cent of Greenland ice in total over more than a decade might seem a small proportion, he said it was still enough to cause a problematic rise in sea levels in future years, because of the huge scale of the Greenland ice sheet. "A small percentage of a very big number is still a big number," he said.


© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes)
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Denier cult dimwits like PoliticalChucklehead and ol' wired&bent are the ugly, dishonest, severely retarded victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect coupled with unfortunate effects of having siblings for parents.
We have already been through this here and it has been shown pretty convincingly that you are far more likely to be the victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect a than I primaraly because you aren't able to speak to the topics at hand in your own words but spend vast amounts of bandwidth telling everyone how much smarter you are than them. Thanks for the concern, but I am afraid that if either of us are victims, it is you. But then, your condintion would naturally lead you to the conclusion that someone else had the condition, wouldn't it? Sorry about that.

I have done my work out in public right here on this board and to date, no one has pointed to any error on my part or any mis applied physical law. My confidence lies in the fact that I have shown my work and it is still standing. You, on the other hand are a cut and paste drone who doesn't have the math, or the science background to actually know whether the materials you cut and paste are true or not. You, like rocks and konradv determine who you will believe based on your political leanings, not any specific knowledge.

Again, to bad about your condition.
 
Last edited:

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,908
Reaction score
12,109
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
So here's the real story. The 'worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists who are trying to exaggerate global warming' (that all you deranged denier cultists believe in) somehow got their wires crossed and came out in droves to denounce the sloppy work in the Times's atlas and affirm that it was not based on their scientific findings. Greenland is losing ice mass at an increasing rate but not that fast.

Times Atlas publishers apologise for 'incorrect' Greenland ice statement
20 September 2011
(excerpts)

The publishers of the Times Atlas were forced to admit on Tuesday that they were wrong to claim the Greenland ice pack had shrunk by 15%, as Arctic scientists rounded on the company for misinterpreting data and failing to consult them. The humiliating climbdown for HarperCollins – part of Rupert Murdoch's publishing empire – came after key sources of data on the Greenland ice denied that their research, cited by the Times Atlas, warranted the claims.

Experts at the US's main research body for the Arctic, the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said their estimates showed that the Times Atlas was wrong. In a statement, NSIDC said: "[We have] never released a specific number for Greenland ice loss over the past decade...The loss of ice from Greenland is far less than the Times Atlas brochure indicates." They joined experts from the UK's Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge, who criticised the Times Atlas for failing to consult researchers before publishing the claims. But claims about ice can be slippery – although Greenland has been losing ice mass, and the area covered by ice is gauged to be smaller than in past decades, to put a precise figure on the loss is difficult, as ice cover can change from year to year and seasonally, and depends on the volume of ice as well as its extent. Although the amount of ice lost is likely to be about 200 cubic kilometres per year, this is still tiny compared with the enormous extent of the ice, at about 2.9m cubic kilometres in total, according to data from the Scott Polar Research Institute. Although ice loss is accelerating, it could still take centuries for the Greenland ice cap to melt away – if a 15% loss in 10 years were true, it would mean that all of the key climate change models would have to be drastically redrawn.

Scientists are confident that the observed loss of Arctic ice – which can be graphically illustrated in the retreat of some of the island's biggest glaciers and the break-up of thinning sea ice, for instance – is a result of the observed warming temperatures of the past decades.

Poul Christoffersen, glaciologist at the Scott Polar Research Institute, said he and fellow researchers had examined the atlas and found that "a sizeable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered". He added that there was "to our knowledge no support for [the 15% ice reduction] claim in the published scientific literature." Although a loss of 0.1 per cent of Greenland ice in total over more than a decade might seem a small proportion, he said it was still enough to cause a problematic rise in sea levels in future years, because of the huge scale of the Greenland ice sheet. "A small percentage of a very big number is still a big number," he said.


© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes)
"We're sorry we got caught."
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,190
Reaction score
35,610
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
So.....you'll be pleased to learn that phrenology is making a comeback.
Climate pseudoscience is the ugly, dishonest, moderately retarded stepchild of phrenology.
Worse...our friend Tripping-Dunderhead...has fallen for global governance, convinced that he's about to save the world.

I suggest he consider Delingpole's book "Watermelon' which labels the movement as green on the outside but red on the inside.

It's politics, not science.

But, hey, it keeps the easily fooled off the street corners.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
the best reason I have heard for the Times Atlas fiasco is that confused the data set for greenland ice cap only for ice cap + glaciers. they originally blamed their source but backed off when it was obvious the error was their's.

the unspoken question is why outlandish claims often go unquestioned when in the direction of CAGW but any claim, no matter how small, that goes against the trend of AGW comes under intense scrutiny and usually has rebuttals published before or at least at the same time as the paper in question. remember the head of CERN disavowing any climate change implications of the CLOUD experiment? weeks and weeks before the info was released
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change.

In its latest edition, the £150 Times Atlas of the World has changed a huge coastal area of Greenland from white to green, suggesting an alarming acceleration of the melting of the northern ice cap.

Accompanying publicity material declared the change reflected ‘concrete evidence’ that 15 per cent of the ice sheet around the island – an area the size of the United Kingdom – had melted since 1999.

But last night the atlas’s publishers admitted that the ‘ice-free’ areas could in fact still be covered by sheets of more than a quarter of a mile thick. It came after a group of leading polar scientists from Cambridge University wrote to them saying their changes were ‘incorrect and misleading’ and that the true rate of melting has been far slower.

Experts from the University’s internationally-renowned Scott Polar Research Institute said the apparent disappearance of 115,830 sq miles of ice had no basis in science and was contradicted by recent satellite images


JammieWearingFool: Atlasgate: 'A Killer Mistake That Cannot Be Winked Away'
LOLOLOLOL......you retards are priceless....

So what did happen? The Times Atlas of the World, which BTW is not a peer reviewed science journal, seems to have mistakenly exaggerated ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet and a whole bunch of scientists from various places criticized their recent edition saying that Greenland is indeed losing ice but not quite that fast. If, as you dingbat denier cultists believe, there is a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists to exaggerate the climate change crisis, why did all these scientists insist that the ice loss was less than the Atlas showed? The fact is, they are doing their jobs and striving for accuracy, as almost all scientists do.

Greenland is still losing ice mass at an accelerating rate.



Accelerated Ice Loss from Greenland
Mar 30th, 2010
(excerpt)

How do we know Greenland has been losing ice on balance? Data from two satellite missions have independently led to the same conclusion. ICESat has repeatedly measured the elevation profile of the Greenland Ice Sheet in great detail; changes over time, combined with estimates of ice compression and density, have allowed scientists to track changes in mass.Separately, the GRACE mission has provided a direct measure of mass change through time, through its unique “scale in the sky” capabilities, and is the basis for the 2004-2007 average annual loss estimate shown here.1
You complete and utter buffoon.. LOL

"The publishers of the world’s most prestigious atlas have been caught out by Cambridge scientists exaggerating the effects of climate change."

get it? Its not a scientific peer reviewed publication. Its a atlas.. You know what you would look at if you left your house to go somewhere far away. MORON!!!!

The point was they exaggerated the melting ice on greenland. Its not open to peer review you imbecile, its contradictory to reality and satelite evidence reviewed and provided by the same scientists whose peer reviewed papers you post and cry over all the time. THEY said it was wrong, not some anti-agw protesters, not me, not Obama, the scientists who study that areas ice coverage said it.

You unconscionable eco-whore, you have no integrity at all.. Seriously your own scientists tell you they got it wrong and rather than shut the hell up and accept that the atlas makers were wrong, you try and dispute the very scientists you support by crying peer review like an idiot. You don't care about truth, right and wrong, or anything but pushing your favored eco-religion on people.. Seriously what makes you any better than the people you claim are in the pocket of big oil? You are the same animal just on different sides... Unbelievable!
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top