Ice loss claim exaggerated by Doomers

[guardian]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/19/us-atlas-ice-idUSTRE78I4UG20110919?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

The Times Atlas of the World exaggerated the rate of Greenland's ice loss.

The atlas, published by HarperCollins, showed that Greenland lost 15 percent of its ice cover over the past 12 years, based on information from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado in the United States. The Greenland ice sheet is the second biggest in the world and significant shrinking could lead to a global rise in sea levels.

"We believe that the figure of a 15 percent decrease in permanent ice cover since the publication of the previous atlas 12 years (ago) is both incorrect and misleading," "We concluded that a sizable portion of the area mapped as ice-free in the Atlas is clearly still ice-covered." Other scientists agreed. "These new maps are ridiculously off base, way exaggerated relative to the reality of rapid change in Greenland," said Jeffrey S. Kargel, senior research scientist at the University of Arizona.

The Times Atlas suggested the Greenland ice sheet has lost 300,000 square kilometers in the past 12 years, at a rate of 1.5 percent per year. However, measurements suggest this rate is at least 10 times faster than in reality. "It could easily be 20 times too fast and might well be 50 times too fast,"

[Systematic Chaos]

1. But the Arctic ice IS disappearing.

And record high temperatures are several times more common than record lows.

And the oceans continue to warm and acidify, and species continue to migrate pole-ward and to higher elevations, or just go extinct.

Now what was your point again? Because not one fuck will be given this OP by anyone who actually keeps tabs on the shit that's going down.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. I think the point was to put 'Doomers' in a DU title

The 'Doomers' in question being a Murdoch company that issued the new edition last week, and which has got more coverage for "it's wrong" than the original issue did. Murdoch publisher wrong - shock horror ...

[aquart]

3. Wrong about what? Got a link? A context?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Apart from the link in the OP? You can try Google News

and get some similar articles with quotes from various scientists.

[Viking12]

5. Let me fix that for you: "Fox publishes wrong info, Scientists tell the truth"

Not much different than what happens with other NewsCorps publications.

[truebrit71]

6. So a Murdoch company runs a false-flag op in order to discredit the entire issue...

...where is the surprise here?