A Preconceived Expectation by NASA is Destroyed by a New Finding

It comes as no surprise that NASA scientists have been “all-in” when it comes to global warming, even when data doesn’t support it. In fact, NASA and NOAA have been caught multiple times ‘doctoring’ the data to fit what they expected to find. They’ve even admitted doing it. However, they recently got a surprise when a new finding showed nearly the opposite of their preconceived expectation and prediction.

In question was the Jakobshavn glacier on the west coast of Greenland. This glacier gets a lot of scientific attention because it has been recognized as the fastest thinning and fastest flowing glacier in the world. The expectation by NASA was that studies would show that the glacier is thinning even faster and is moving away from the ocean as it melts.

What they discovered, though, is that in the last couple of years, the glacier has been getting thicker and is advancing on the ocean; exactly the opposite of what they had expected and predicted. Of course, this caused the scientists to scramble in an attempt to explain the new finding, without sounding totally absurd.

Their best guess is that the glacier is growing because of what is known as the North Atlantic Oscillation or NAO. This is a current pattern in the North Atlantic that ‘switches’ roughly every 20 years or so. That is, the North Atlantic Ocean is dominated by and surrounded by a warm ocean current for about 20 years, then it becomes dominated by a cold current.

The NAO is definitely not something new. Scientists have known about it for a long time. However, NASA’s best guess is that in the last few years, the current has switched to the cold oscillation. In fact, they were surprised at just how cold the North Atlantic has been for the last couple of years.

The biggest mystery is this. Since NASA already knew about the NOA and had already determined that ocean temperatures near Greenland were substantially colder than anticipated, and assuming that this is actually the reason the glacier is getting thicker and advancing, why was this not taken into account when they set their expectations?

As admitted by Ala Khazendar, the study lead research scientist from NASA’s JPL labs in California, “At first, we didn’t believe it. We had pretty much assumed that Jakobshavn would just keep going on as it had over the last 20 years.”  Yet, the data shows that this isn’t just a burp. The ocean temperatures have been decidedly colder near Greenland for three years in a row. 

Is it conceivable that this wasn’t taken into account specifically because NASA didn’t want to find that the glacier was growing? It is hard to say, and this isn’t the first time something like this has happened. It would also make sense. The unfortunate reality is that there is a far greater amount of funding available if NASA is studying a shrinking glacier than there is if it is studying one that is growing. This shows a potential money-connection to their expectations and forecast models.

This is honestly sad because science isn’t supposed to be based on hopes, agenda, and money, it is supposed to be based on un-doctored facts. Alas, NASA has become a political entity in the past 30 years instead of a scientific one. The news about the glacier is good news, but the fact that NASA set unreasonable expectations despite what the data showed isn’t good news at all.

  • Do you think that NASA should start relying on real data that isn’t ‘adjusted’ before making claims and predictions?

    • Yes
    • No
    • I see no problem with doctoring the data they use


What do you think?


Written by Rex Trulove

Wordsmith BuddySmarty PantsLoyal BuddyStory MakerPoll MakerQuiz MakerYears Of MembershipList MakerGallery MakerImage MakerEmbed MakerContent Author


Leave a Reply
  1. Agreed, modern science seems to have fallen victim of corruption and demands faith like it was a religion. If you question a theory, you become a heretic, which isn’t exactly how science should work: Science IS about questioning.

    • You’ve got that exactly right. When scientists start out with a pre-conceived notion, they lose all credibility. It was precisely that sort of thinking that left people believing that the earth was the center of the universe for 1,500 years, even though there was plenty of data that showed that it wasn’t.

    • That is exactly my point of view. Nobody expects NASA or any other agency to be 100% correct all the time and they do themselves an injustice when they try to imply that they are. In fact, science usually learns far more when scientists are wrong than when they are right. It is amazing that NASA so seldom admits that they are wrong or that they don’t know the answer to a question.

Leave a Reply