They thought? Or assumed? Which opens up a pile of questions about unproven hypothesis. Thoughts without supporting evidence... Ideas that have no reason/reasoning.
Patagonia's ice sheets are more massive than scientists thought
June 4 (UPI) -- A seven-year survey of Patagonia's ice suggests the slabs of ice that stretch across vast portions of Argentina and Chile are thicker than scientists thought, measuring more than a mile in thickness in some places.Did the scientists make specific claims regarding the massive ice sheets that have now been proven false? Can't say for sure, but, I suspect that there have been false claims made. Read on...
"We did not think the ice fields on the Patagonian plateau could be quite that substantial," Eric Rignot, professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Irvine, said in a news release. "As a result of this multinational research project, we found that -- added together -- the northern and southern portions of Patagonia clearly hold more ice than anticipated, roughly 40 times the ice volume of the European Alps."
"Measurements collected using satellite radar altimetry and optical imagery suggest most of Patagonia's ice sheets have been rapidly thinning during the past few decades. Outside of Antarctica, Patagonia's ice fields are the largest in the Southern Hemisphere. But as the glacial reserves in Argentina and Chile melt, water drains into the ocean, fueling sea level rise."Measurements 'suggest' most of Patagonia's ice sheets have been thinning? How could or should "scientists"have drawn such conclusions when they'd no clue about the actual size of the ice sheets
"This is why having accurate maps of the ice thickness is a priority," said Romain Millan, who is now a postdoctoral scholar at the Institute of Environmental Geosciences in France but worked on the survey as a graduate student at UCI. "It is fundamental to get the right contours and depth of the glacial valleys; otherwise, simulations of glacier retreat will always be wrong."Yes, having accurate maps is a priority. However the lack of accurate maps did not stop "scientists" from speculating that the ice had thinned.
Of course without the accurate mapping 'simulation of glacier retreats" will always be wrong.
I'm of the mind simulations can be wrong with our without accurate maps. It's just a matter of fraudulent/misleading data input . Also, one shouldn't presume glacier retreat. Unless a specific agenda is being advanced. One would also think a REAL scientists would say glacial changes.
A statement that does not include a pre assumed conclusion
"Sounding techniques can only be used on the shallowest portions of Patagonia's ice fields, and because almost all of the region's ice exists at temperatures close to its melting point, the sheet's water content is unusually high, making measurements using radar less effective.
Scientists conducted the newly concluded seven-year survey using gravimeters, flown in airplanes high above the surface of the ice. After dozens of flights, scientists used the gravitational field measurements to map the ice thickness. The findings -- published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters -- showed Patagonia's ice is much thicker than previous studies suggested"The science is never settled. Only an agenda is settled on.