Scroll down to read this post.
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.
Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.
Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:
If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. In comparison, the 2006 study of mountain glaciers and ice caps estimated their loss at 402 gigatonnes a year on average, with a year-over-year acceleration rate three times smaller than that of the ice sheets.
Several things to note after reading the actual paper:
- The scientists used two independent sources of information and found that they agreed.
- One source involved the use of a computer model, which is always fraught with problems.
- The other source was data from the climate satellite Grace. Here also they made some corrections and assumptions, but far less so.
- Finally, the scientists themselves admit that there “is considerable uncertainty” about their conclusions.
The results are without doubt worrisome, especially because of the Grace data. However, before I would accept them wholesale, I’d want to see what other scientists say about it. Also, the amount of computer modeling and corrections in the research gives me pause. The results might be correct, but they might also be the result of “garbage in/garbage.” Sadly, we have had too many examples recently of pro-global warming scientists fudging their data to serve their political ends. It leaves me very skeptical of any of this work.