Thanks for posting that NASA link. I taught a course on climate change prior to joining the evil empire (aka petroleum industry), and this was one of the resources that was used. I believe that politicians have oversimplified climate change, and the science backs this up. In places like Greenland, there is a net loss of ice (as the link http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/ states: “Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”). In Antarctica, there is evidence that there is still a net gain of ice. However, there is evidence that the rate of ice gain is decreasing, and in time, the amount of ice loss may be greater than the ice gain. Each system has its own unique dynamic features, which is completely lost when dealing with politics, as they need to simplify issues to a 15sec sound bite for voter satisfaction.
These are complex systems, and there are different methods to predict changes to the systems. One method is forward modeling, which is what the DMI website seems to use. They have different measurements & plugging those into equations, can estimate if there is ice gain or loss in the Greenland system. The problem with this method is the lack of data. They have a sparse network of data input due to the obvious complexities of deploying, maintaining, and collecting data from these stations. This means the results are not as accurate as a satellite measurements, which can measure the entire system instead of isolated data points. Using measurements (such as brightness) taken by satellites of the region, one can directly determine how much ice gain or loss occurs. I’ve posted the link to this study for you to check out.
I’m not sure why this is something you feel so passionately to post several links to stories. I need to go through all of the links as I have only checked out two of them, but my overall feeling is that you are cherry picking studies that seem to back up your belief that “global warming” doesn’t exist without actually reading what the links say. For example, this was one of the researcher’s statements from the NASA article on Antarctica:
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
May I ask why you feel that you are being lied to? What are your motivations for your comments?
For those interested in understanding the science behind global climate change, here is a fairly good resource- I was a bit skeptical of its appearance, but the information presented agrees with scientifically accept facts.
