1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

New NASA climate change site

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by Alric, Feb 24, 2010.

Page 2 of 2
  1. ems1

    ems1 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    55
    7
    0
    Location:
    MN
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Model:
    N/A

    Alric do I have to break out the emails about blocking skeptics from the peer review process? We all know thats what they did:D
     
    #21 ems1, Mar 4, 2010
  2. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    I'd like to see that too, No one can block anyone from publishing papers on a journal. From the emails all you can see is a group of coauthor deciding not to publish in a journal because of contrarian tendencies.
     
    #22 Alric, Mar 4, 2010
  3. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Maybe he's complaining about denialist papers being rejected from peer-reviewed journals when those papers fail to pass scientific muster.
     
    #23 daniel, Mar 4, 2010
  4. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,156
    3,562
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    If ones looks at the journals, one will see publications that tend to support 'the concensus' (if you like) in climate change research, and others that oppose it. Most recently I could mention a new estimate of Alaskan glacier melt over the last 40 years reduced by about 50%. It's in Nature Geoscience.

    OTOH if one relies on climate blogs (pro or con), they might not realize this. Really, it's up to you to form your opinions on these matters.
     
    #24 tochatihu, Mar 4, 2010
  5. Alric

    Alric New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    1,526
    87
    0
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    The conclusion from the study you mention.

    "Ice loss from Alaskan glaciers since 1962 is evidently smaller than previously thought. However, thinning (sometimes over 10 m/year, as in the Columbia glacier) and glacial retreat remain considerable. Moreover, the spectacular acceleration in mass loss since the mid-1990s, corresponding to a contribution of 0.25 to 0.30 mm/year to sea-level rise, is not in question and proves to be a worrying indication of future sea-level rise."

    It is not up to "you" to "make up your mind". You either accept the scientific consensus, come up with new data or simply become a denier.
     
    #25 Alric, Mar 4, 2010
    2 people like this.
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2