Why Gravity Data Is Worthless In The Hands Of Climate Scientists

Graphs like the one above purporting to ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica are worthless, for several reasons.

  1. The are generated by people with  a global warming agenda who don’t understand the mathematics and science underlying their calculations.
  2. Gravity data shouldn’t change as the ice grows or melts.

9.4 Isostasy – Physical Geology

The Greenland ice sheet is two miles thick and is is very heavy. It’s weight depresses the crust and causes the mantle to be displaced to the sides.  The mass of displaced mantle is approximately equal to the mass of the ice sheet.  If the ice sheet was growing, it would cause an equal mass of mantle to be displaced to the sides.  If the ice sheet was shrinking, it would cause an equal mass of the mantle to flow back under the ice sheet.  Whether the ice sheet is expanding or shrinking, the total mass in a vertical column should be relatively constant.

Climate scientists aren’t very bright, and don’t understand the basics of geology and geophysics.

estimates failed to account for glacial isostatic adjustment

Climate Change: New Study Halves the Rate of Ice Cap Melt | TIME.com

Unless you understand what is going on underneath the ice sheet, you can’t use gravity data – and no one really knows what is going on underneath the ice sheet.  Rock is three times as dense as ice, and small changes in geology show up as imaginary large changes in ice.

Greenland’s largest glaciers have been expanding over the past six years.


The surface mass balance is rapidly growing.  But let’s ignore all that and focus on junk science gravity interpretations by climate science hacks.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Why Gravity Data Is Worthless In The Hands Of Climate Scientists

  1. Stewart Pid says:

    Terak has a degree is Junk Science from the University of Climate Hacks …. it isn’t a BSc but is a special pure BS degree.
    Actually Terak what is your degree in? U too Griff what education do you have?

  2. garyh845 says:

    Last year’s Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

    • Griff says:

      yes. and if you look up the DMI commentary on last years mass balance it will tell you that the chart is only part of the story… loss from glacial calving and melt usually is more than the accumulation: last year there was probably no net change or just a minor accumulation. The first in decades… and of course there is a climate related reason for increased snowfall over Greenland (no, not cos its colder)

      • Gator says:

        Decades? Wow! Greenland is that old? LOL

      • AndyG55 says:

        Greenland is very much at high levels of ice compared to the last 8000+ years, griff

        Why do you constantly DENY climate change?

      • AndyG55 says:

        “no, not cos its colder”

        Are you LYING or MALINFORMED, which is it griff.?

        May set two new “COLDEST EVER” records in Greenland.

        And why are you TOTALLY INCAPABLE of learning anything about actual Greenland history?

      • Rah says:

        Well there you go. The climate giveth and taketh away. For the last couple years it has giveth despite all the Kings horses and all the Kings men and the lowly serfs like Griff saying it would taketh.

    • Harold Hahn says:

      Tony: I was trying to use google earth to study firn lines on glacial ice, but all glacial firn is blurred out, except for a few spots in Iceland, for which there are no “historic pictures”! I did observe “historic imagery”, of glaciers flowing up, away from the sea, and pictures taken in summer that became pictures taken on December 31, as soon as they were no longer in the current year, and became white with new fallen snow. For some reason, those pictures of fresh snow covered glaciers were all the same! All 33 purported years of “historic imagery”
      were all taken on 12/31 of each year, and did not show any down hill movement, from one year to the next! I sent Surgey Brin an email asking him to do the right thing, and he disabled my google earth! When I started to tell people what I had found, Google tried to cover their tracks, but they just left a whole lot of new evidence that they were trying to cover up what they had done! On a warming planet, firn lines would move to higher altitude with each passing year, and they would want us all to see that! For SOME reason, they do not want anybody on earth to be able to use Google Earth’s 33+ years of “historic imagery” to see global warming taking place by looking at the changing altitude of firn lines! It is to bad that we do not have a justice department that would try to “follow the money” that Google is being paid to hide all the glacial firn on earth, and make the glaciers they do show, FLOW UP HILL!!!

  3. terak says:

    BTW climate scientists do not understand jack shit about gravity measurements that are done by geodesists. To keep the narrative going you should now cook up a giant conspiracy theory, claiming that ALL geodesists are freemasons or reptilians or somesuch. Keep on denying folks :D

    • neal s says:

      Just keep trying to tell me that acceleration in sea level rise is happening in mid-ocean and that it is perfectly normal for there to be no sign of that in tide gauges.
      Do that and I will confidently know that you are incapable of rational thought and I can safely ignore anything you might have to say.

    • Gator says:

      Just keep denying the NASA study that says Antarctica is gaining ice, be a science denier Ms Terak.

    • tonyheller says:

      When faced with facts contrary to their religion, climate alarmists invariably start ranting mindlessly about black helicopters.

      I’ve spent a good part of the last week discussing this on twitter with a climate scientist who does gravity interpretations of ice.

      • Griff says:

        I misread that first time – I thought you’d written ‘does impressions of ice’. I was going to ask if you had a video of him doing it…

    • sunsettommy says:

      Tony Heller has a degree in Geology.

      Meanwhile you didn’t offer a counterpoint to Tony’s post, how come?

      • Andy says:

        “Tony Heller has a degree in Geology”

        Wow !

        • sunsettommy says:

          What was Terek saying, fella?


        • Jimmy Haigh says:

          So have I. I bet you don’t.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            That’s a safe bet. If reader Andy at least talked to a few geologists he would know what they think about runaway global warming and climate tipping point bedwetters.

          • terak says:

            Colorado do you talk to other types of Earth Scientists than geologists? Studying old rocks is not the best possible background for assessing what is happening right now and why…

          • Gator says:

            Actually it really is. I started as a geology student and later studied climatology. My long term perspective of Earth’s history gave me a better grasp of climate change than those who started out as climatology students. I will never forget my first climatology class, it was weird because my professor seemed ignorant of the vast changes in climate that regularly occur on our planet.

            Geologists have a good understanding of the dynamics of our past climates, where many others do not.

            While we are on the subject, care to try again?

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            I’m still waiting…

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Old rocks, eh?

            Ms Terak, you ignorance of geology and Earth history is second only to your inability to reason. You don’t even understand the simple points about the underlying propositions of unprecedented and runaway climate developments.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Studying old rocks “‘

            Studying with Al Gore hasn’t help you much, has it, terak.

            If you really think geologist only study old rocks, then it seems you are IGNORANT in that area, as well as everything else.

            What is happening right now is a SLIGHT, but TOTALLY NATURAL and HIGHLY BENEFICIAL climb out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

            Be VERY thankful that it has happened. !

          • terak says:

            What gives the geologists their apparent edge in denialist thought? Is it the familiarity with geological timescales and past change? Or that exactly the thing that prevents them from seeing the current change clearly? BTW there are also some other fields in Earth Science that deal with longer timescales, for example the study of paleoclimate or glaciology to mention a couple..

          • AndyG55 says:

            Tell me gator, why is it that these AGW fundeMENTALists are always so INCAPABLE of answering simple questions.

            Its quite BIZARRE the many ways they find to run and hide from answering.

          • terak says:

            Andy what are the “natural” reasons that have taken us clearly higher temperatures than before the LIA? Note that the rise is continuing as we speak at about 1.5C per century. How is this possible now that Sun has been getting more quiet for a couple of decades?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            QED. Thanks for helping to make my point, Ms Terak.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Heh, Ms Terak makes allusions to climate forcings that she repeatedly refused to list and quantify.

          • terak says:

            Are you folks so backward that being a woman is considered a handicap in your neck of the backwoods, or why the frequent Ms. titles? Funny…

          • Gator says:

            Natural climate change denial is clearly a religion. Me Terak has displayed her inability to disprove the 800 pound gator in the room we all know as natural variability. This failure is systemic in Ms Terak’s religious circles, and has been well documented on this site as well as many others. The experiment has been duplicated on many occasions, and the results are always the same, the anti-science natural variability crowd never loses faith even after failing utterly to disprove the Null Hypothesis.

            Watch as we poke and prod our subject, listen as it squeals “can’t be the Sun”, “he’s not a climate scientist”, and “it’s unprecdented”. What fun!

          • Gator says:

            My mother is a woman. So is my girlfriend. Why would I attack them? They are far more intelligent than you, and your insinuation that being female is considered a handicap is disturbing.

            Now answer the questions and quit changing the subject.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            I’m still waiting…

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            What the heck have you cooked up there again, Mr & Ms Terak? I’m surrounded by intelligent women and I honor them all.

            Are you a man who pretends to be a woman for some strange reason but believes at the same time that being one is a handicap and using a Ms honorifics is an insult?

            What is wrong with you both?

    • arn says:

      Well-one does not need to cook up a thing.
      Flat Earth,Reptilians,Aliens etc are made for morons like you
      so you can throw around with words and feel superior.

      While in fact those things have absolutely nothing to do with the things we talk about.

      But let’s get to some Facts:
      We already have had several huge conspiracies being proven true as:
      Bankers conspiring to privatise the Dollar = Federal Reserve which is neither federal nor has reserves.

      World Wide Spying on a gigantic scale(most primitive dumbfucks would have called you a total looney(and whatever those dumbfucks have been told on tv by their masters)and that such a thing is absolutely impossible until the second Snowden released the documents about Prism, though former NSA William Binney has been talking about this 10 years before Snowden.((and most dumbfucks still can not understand how gigantic this realy is and how huge the level of effort,logistics and planning that was needed to create this spying megabeast ))

      Then we had the manhattan project:130.000 people have been working on it and it still was kept a secret for more than 10 years.

      Than we had dozens of worldwide government changes made in usa.
      Several times those dictators were also made in USA(trained at school of the americas for dictatorships in south america)
      The removing of mossadeq in iran.
      The killing of lumumba in africa(thanks to noble piece prize massmurderer mr heinz kissinger)

      Than we have secret meetings going on for decades with corporate ceo’s,megabankers and statesmen+the media corporations,
      and the media is refusing to talk about it.
      When you claim that such a meeting exists the primitive dumbfuck
      will laugh and cry conspiracy theory
      (i’m pretty sure you know such low IQ idiots very well.People whose main smartness is to cry out:Nazi,Conspiracy theorist)
      But as soon as you proove to the primitivr dumbfuck such a meeting exists
      the dumbfuck gets confused.
      Than dumbfuck goes to wikipedia:
      And all of a sudden something he never thought could exist is no longer a crazy conspiracy theory but:An informal meeting.

      Than we had countries(+their secret services) conspiring to destroy another country by using lies.
      That happened whe the UK&USA destroyed iraq.
      First they used the layer cake lie-
      this was debunked instantly,but UK&USA did not care.
      They pulled the WMD lie out of their butts and destroyed iraq.

      Than we had noble piece prize massmurderer Barak Insane Obama
      who tried to destroy Syria based on false flag gas attacks(after he destroyed Lybia by using lies).
      Seymour Hersh exposed the lies of Obama instantly with his article
      “The red line and the rat line”
      A fantastic article – but a strange thing happened in free america where media is supposed to tell truth and protect democracy:
      The very same MSM that can write non stop for 3 weeks when Kardashians butt grows an inch in size refused to print his fantastic article exposing the scandal.
      Instead of helping to stop the destruction the MSM was pushing more and more for the destruction of syria by repeating obamas lies.

      The destruction of vietnam started with a lie=Tonkin incident.
      Not just that:In the beginning of the 1970ies The Pentagon Paper leak proved that this war was kept artificially alive-still the war was kept going for several more years.

      In 1897 Media Mogul Randolph Hearst sent Frederic Remington to cuba to report about the spanish american war:
      Remington cabled from Cuba:”There is no war and there’ll be no war”
      Hearst replied:”You furnish the pictures,I’ll furnish the war”
      Within a few weeks the war started.

      Or the iran-contra affair,
      or cia importing drugs into the usa(air america)
      to poison american people,
      or how the taliban was created by the cia,
      or gladio(staged terror attacks on europeans by cia/nato)
      or the mighty p2 lodge in italy
      or that the opium production in afghanistan increased by 25000% after
      war-on-drugs USA entered afghanistan.

      All those things happened and are happening and there are still some primitive idiots alive and operating on such a poor level of understanding and awareness that the only thing they can do is crying:”conspiravy theorie”

      These idiots are so primitive that they call you even a conspiracy theorist when you call a guy a Kenian who called himself Kenian for many years.
      These people are so stupid that they will believe the very same scientists who promoted the ice age scare in the 60ies and 70 ies
      the global warming scare
      without ever asking:
      “How the hell can a science turn from one very extreme to the exact opposite extreme within a few years”
      (( but this is not the first time public opinion was turned to the exact opposite by the opinionmakers:
      In 1914 after the Ludlow massacre JD Rockefeller was the most hated man in the USA.
      But thanks to the help of his rich buddies who owned the MSM
      the popular opinion was reshaped an
      by 1920 he was considered the biggest philantroph ever.

  4. oldscout says:

    So can someone explain how DMI generates its surface mass balance data? I had assumed it used gravity sensing satellite measurements, but apparently not.

    • neal s says:

      I direct you to https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2016.00110/full

      But I will say this … although there are some things they actually measure (like snow accumulation) the whole thing is done with ‘models’.

      • Andy says:

        To improve Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass balance (SMB) simulation, the subsurface scheme of the HIRHAM5 regional climate model was extended to include snow densification, varying hydraulic conductivity, irreducible water saturation and other effects on snow liquid water percolation and retention. Sensitivity experiments to investigate the effects of the additions and the impact of different parameterization choices are presented. Compared with 68 accumulation area ice cores, the simulated mean annual net accumulation bias is −5% (correlation coefficient of 0.90). Modeled SMB in the ablation area compares favorably with 1041 PROMICE observations with regression slope of 0.95–0.97 (depending on model configuration), correlation coefficient of 0.75–0.86 and mean bias −3%. Weighting ablation area SMB biases at low- and high-elevation with the amount of runoff from these areas, we estimate ice sheet-wide mass loss biases in the ablation area at −5 and −7% using observed (MODIS-derived) and internally calculated albedo, respectively. Comparison with observed melt day counts shows that patterns of spatial (correlation ~0.9) and temporal (correlation coefficient of ~0.9) variability are realistically represented in the simulations. However, the model tends to underestimate the magnitude of inter-annual variability (regression slope ~0.7) and overestimate that of spatial variability (slope ~1.2). In terms of subsurface temperature structure and occurrence of perennial firn aquifers and perched ice layers, the most important model choices are the albedo implementation and irreducible water saturation parameterization. At one percolation area location, for instance, the internally calculated albedo yields too high subsurface temperatures below 5 m, but when using an implementation of irreducible saturation allowing higher values, an ice layer forms in 2011, reducing the deep warm bias in subsequent years. On the other hand, prior to the formation of the ice layer, observed albedos combined with lower irreducible saturation give the smallest bias. Perennial firn aquifers and perched ice layers occur in varying thickness and area for different model parameter choices. While the occurrence of these features has an influence on the local-scale subsurface temperature, snow, ice and water fields, the Greenland-wide runoff and SMB are—in the model’s current climate—dominated by the albedo implementation.

  5. Ed Bo says:

    The gravitometric data shows that the mass of the Antarctic continent is increasing. They claim that the ice mass is decreasing because the isostatic rebound of the underlying rock causes the rock mass to be increasing faster than the total mass.

    Where continental glaciers have disappeared, like Alaska and Scandinavia, there is still significant rebound. But in Antarctica, snowfall is much higher now than in glacial periods so the glacier mass could even be higher.

    • tonyheller says:

      Guesswork based on confirmation bias.

    • terak says:

      It’s the viscoelastic rebound that happens immediately…the isostatic part takes thousands and thousands of years. GPS on bedrock detects movements of rock and the loss of ice is visible in images as measurable with altimetry.

      • Ed Bo says:

        And your point would be?

        We’re talking here about the present rate of the long term isostatic rebound (if any) of rock under a model of ice, so not directly measurable.

  6. willys36 says:

    Good old perpetual motion machines come in many forms. You have just discovered another version invented by the science hoaxers; storing free energy with voodoo fluid displacement.

    • terak says:

      So let’s see, spaceborne altimetry and gravity measurements are hoaxes? Are you a Flat Earther?

      • Gator says:

        Gravity measurements are real, pretending to use them to measure ice is not. Then there is this…

        A new paper about to be in press, comes at the end of a flurry of papers and reports published this week that claims Antarctica was losing ice mass. Zwally says ice growth is anywhere from 50 gigatons to 200 gigatons a year.

        Will you deny this science as well as the NASA study I previously provided? It’s pretty clear you are a cheerleader, and not a player.

        • terak says:

          Zwally uses a correction in his retrievals that most other researchers do not agree with.

          • Gator says:

            So what? It passed peer review.

            I thought this was all simple physics and settled science.

            Since you claim to know everything, how about you…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      • Ed Bo says:


        I see you have never done real world measurements where you have to account for uncertainties and errors. The difficulties in measuring to the precision they claim are immense. Newer reports of these results often have changed by more than the previously published error bars.

        Those who accept these results uncritically are the true flat earthers.

        • terak says:

          The definition of “uncritical” is to accept claims on blogs as being valid points, without waiting for the study to be published. It’s really too bad for your cause denialists publish so little.

          • neal s says:

            And yet you believe that acceleration in sea level rise is happening in mid-ocean and that it is perfectly normal for there to be no sign of that in tide gauges. You are as uncritical and unthinking as the emperor who loved his new clothes.

  7. AndyG55 says:

    “Rock is three times as dense as ice, and small changes in geology show up as imaginary large changes in ice.”

    Not only that, but different types of magma and volcanic rocks can have quite different densities. Magma is always slowly moving under the crust.

    Way too many unknows to even contemplate using gravity-based data to measure anything over an active volcanic region.

    The change that GRACE is seeing could just as easily be a differential magma pool moving about.

  8. CO2isLife says:

    Tony, this post has an interesting use for the Greenland Data.

    Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct

  9. Andy says:

    Due to too many beers on a Friday night not sure what this post means.,

    Mass loss is what is important, not height due to isostacy differences due to thickness of ice


    Currently mass loss is not much at all and looks like it will have a slow start to the melt season due to cold weather over Greenland coupled with high albedo factor of lots of snow.

  10. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Scott Adams’ take on Climate Science Modelers (an edited version).

  11. Jeffk says:

    That’s very true.
    Climate quacks also continue saying reduced ice volume could only be from “melting” even though temps are well below freezing. They know the average voter and taxpayer is ignorant of sublimation — until we remind them of their unused ice cube tray with shrinking ice due to colder temps and lower humidity in their freezers.

  12. Jeffk says:

    “Climate change” is really about marketing and making press releases. Business history is repleat with examples of better products that failed while inferior ones became popular due to marketing.
    The real climate science side needs to write more and better press releases, to fight the doomsday quacks.

    • terak says:

      What you call “real” climate science is almost nonexistent. A prolific research-group of less than 10 people publishes more research than the whole global “skeptical” climate scientists together. It’s funny people do not notice. Creationists use the same trick..

      • AndyG55 says:

        “What you call “real” climate science is almost nonexistent.”

        Yep, not many of the AGW cultists are publishing much “real” science. Pal-reviews anti-science, which gullible fools like you gobble up and regurgitate.

        Glad you finally recognise that fact.

      • Jeffk says:

        It’s actually not real science to predict the future but it is science fiction. Average voters accept science fiction more readily than real science. Climate quacks know this too. It’s all about scary press releases to keep public opinion and funding going via politics. Just what Ike warned us would happen.

      • Kent Clizbe says:

        So what?

        “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.”


        “Our cover story this week may lead you to question much of what you hear and read about scientific and medical studies. It’s a cautionary note issued by respected industry leaders who say unseen interests are exerting enormous control over research and what is– or isn’t– published. ”


        “US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies, published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

        “Fraudsters are also more likely to be “repeat offenders,” the study shows.”


        “But in the intellectually inbred, filthy-rich world of climate science, where billions of dollars of government research money support trillions of dollars of government policy, peer review has become anything but that.

        “There is simply no “double blindness.” For reasons that remain mysterious, all the major climate journals leave the authors’ names on the manuscripts sent out for review.”


  13. Griff says:

    Absolutely not as you state.

    They ae measuring the ice mass.

    This article contains observations on the measurement technique and names the research papers with the details of the measurement systems. go look them up…

    • AndyG55 says:

      FFS griff. WAKE UP.

      Its ONLY the Western Peninsula, so its ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY NOT due to anything to do with humans.

      Its ALMOST CERTAINLY DUE to increased volcanic activity.

      Do you comprehend.???

      Or are you REALLY as brainless as a single cell amoeba.

      • terak says:

        Andy I bet you won’t find a single reference for your claim that “volcanoes” did it.

        • Brad says:

          Neither will u with ‘human activities’. You climate alarmists deny all science and believe in a propaganda puppet show.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You really need to got to a climate 101 refresher class, don’t you terak.

          You seem to be stuck in a mindless haze from aout 20 years ago. 10 years ago

          ZERO evidence of any human cause.

          Just mindless yapping from brain-hosed AGW cultists.

          Antarctic is Cooling and has been for a long time

          If its the oceans , its not human caused.

          Poor EMPTY terak. mindlessly yapping


        • AndyG55 says:

          Dustin M. Schroeder, Donald D. Blankenship, Duncan A. Young, and Enrica Quartini. Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. PNAS, June 9, 2014 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1405184111 [Abstract]

          • terak says:

            Does it say the geothermal activity is responsible for the recent increased mass-loss? I don’t think so. Are you spreading denialist fabrications with zero basis in science?

        • richard says:





          “Sites of some of the of the 91 volcanoes discovered”

          “Volcanic eruptions may not reach the surface but could melt the ice from beneath and drastically destabilise it”


          • terak says:

            Interesting Richars, but I do not see them proposing that volcanoes are responsible for the relatively recent accelerating mass-loss of WAIS. Can you find any published paper where this is argued? I seriously doubt it.

        • AndyG55 says:

          91 new volcanoes discovers.. oh and look where they are.

          • terak says:

            Thank you Andy for your WUWT-level scientific analysis :D Now, did anyone actually publish analysis proposing volcanoes have anything to do with recent accelerating mass-losses?

        • AndyG55 says:

          even a mathematical and scientific inebriate like you should be able to put two and two together.

          .. well, if it wasn’t for your manic brain-hosed ignorance.

          • terak says:

            That is a relatively dumb comment Andy. Show us the math please – a published article with some quantitative analysis. Are there ANY?

  14. Windsong says:

    As Tony mentioned in his first point of this post, math skills are in short supply these days. Prof. Cliff Mass has written numerous times over many years about the poor math preparation his meteorology students have, and the horrid math curriculum in use at many local school districts.

    Math instruction really does suck in our schools. Recently was in a Honda dealership for an oil change in my Civic. Was chatting with a recent immigrant in the waiting room, and he mentioned his two children did not like the public schools very much. Assuming they were not keeping up, I asked what they thought of the instruction. He replied his kids thought the classwork “was a joke,” other students were “not serious.” His son in middle school said the math class was a full two years behind where he had been in Africa.

  15. Gravity is caused by mass.

    Mass of earth:
    6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons

    Mass of Greenland ice:
    3,000,000,000,000 tons

    Mass of earth is 2 billion times more than Greenland’s ice. And earth’s mass is moving around under the surface, liquid outer core, molten mantle, always moving around. And they think they can measure changes in ICE COVER??????????????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.