Formerly Classified Global Warming Spy Photos Released 791
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama administration has released more than a thousand intelligence images of Arctic ice, following a declassification request by the National Academy of Sciences. The images feature a 1m resolution, and scientists who have had to base climate models on 15m- or 30m-resolution photos are rejoicing. The photos, kept classified by the Bush administration, show the impact of global warming in the Arctic and the retreat of glaciers in Washington and Alaska."
1m resolution = One Meter Per Pixel (Score:5, Informative)
Since the summary and article do not mention it, 1m resolution = One Meter Per Pixel.
I had to research that to figure out why a one megapixel resolution was some how magically better than thirty megapixels.
Re:So uh... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm certainly no fan of Bush and did not vote for him but I'm doubtful that this was some kind of cover up against global warming.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Informative)
Glaciers have retreated before, many times, and the Earth survives.
The problem this time round (according to 97% of climatologists [wikipedia.org]) is that it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour, and that much of the ecology won't be able to adapt quickly enough.
Us humans doubtless will be able to adapt, but in the short term the impact in terms of our economies and human suffering, will be considerable [wikipedia.org].
Re:Name one reason this was classified (Score:3, Informative)
I think the idea is that they classify everything by default as they don't want whoever to figure out how good the satellites are, though this is likely the result of bureaucratic inertia, as 1m doesn't seem that impressive.
Re:15 wasn't enough? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:15 wasn't enough? (Score:3, Informative)
With a 15 m resolution, each pixel is 15^2 m^2 ->225 m^2 wide
This sentence makes no sense. I think I might know what you mean, but you failed to construct an accurate linguistic expression of it.
With a 15m resolution each pixel is 15m wide (or 15(2)^1/2 if you want to use the diagonal), with an area of 225m^2.
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:5, Informative)
Generally speaking, there's supposed to be at least a few of them which aren't melting away to nothing."
In who's reality? I live in the arctic, the glaciers are all receding with each passing year.
Anyone that says global warming isn't happening is ill informed. All you have to do is visit places like Alaska and see for yourself.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Informative)
You are aware, aren't you, that the start of the Industrial Revolution roughly coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age? Things started to get warmer long before industry turned from water power to steam.
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:3, Informative)
Where did I go crazy? Where did I call him a denier? Where am I a zealot? Please point out the zealotry.
The whole point of the line you quoted was my acknowledging the exact opposite of what you're accusing me of claiming--that the OP may very well be a reasonable person who did not imply what I saw in his post.
My concern however was that other people would see the implication and think it was a valid point (again, a point the OP may very well never have even thought of, he may have just been humorously musing on the juxtaposition, as he put it. In fact, I think this is probably what happened.)
The only one name calling here is you, since you seem to think that I am a "global-warming zealot," when nothing could be further from the truth. I could spend the next thirty minutes of my time explaining my actual opinion on the matter, but it isn't relevant to my point which is: Pot, meet kettle.
(Okay, that was a bit of name-calling by me, but I'm only being cheeky, not vindictive--the thought popped into my head and talking kitchenware amuses me. May it amuse you too.)
Picture witt ice is abnormal, not picture without (Score:5, Informative)
This is a great example of sensationalized cherry-picked anecdotal evidence...which in reality means nothing. The picture showing ice was taken during an abnormal year. The ice melts away every year, usually in July. It took longer to melt in 2006 thanks in part to their being more than normal amounts of "multi-year" ice shoved down from the arctic that year.
Article (from AP): http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/372343/arctic_ocean_ice_crashes_on_alaska_shores/ [redorbit.com]
Video (from NASA): http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~10~10~71195~176482:Ice-Surge-in-Barrow,-Alaska [nasaimages.org]
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:3, Informative)
And aren't you aware that volcano activity was heightened during the Little Ice Age? Indeed, one scientist concluded with help from the weather records of Benjamin Franklin that a volcanic eruption was partially responsible for the cold weather during the period it was written, based on his description of clouds obscuring the Moon.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/glaciers/glaciers.pdf [usgs.gov]
Check it out in this PDF, page 13. I originally read the story in LiveScience, but I couldn't find the article again.
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:2, Informative)
"I would contend"
Based on what data? I don't really feel like trusting the future of the planet on somebody's hunch, and the data I've seen seems to show that global warming happens, that it is caused by CO2 emissions, and that it is highly likely that mankind at least contributes substantially to the trend.
"that humans have a minor impact on the globe's warming trend."
Small changes can cause huge changes if the system was in balance before the small change was made.
"There are plenty of other things putting out CO2: cows,"
Okay, that I don't understand at all, perhaps somebody can explain this to me, because I think I'm honestly missing something here. As far as I can tell, this whole "cow emission" thing is total bullshit. Cows' farts don't release new CO2 into the atmosphere. They release CO2 that was previously bound by the plants the cows ate, don't they? So it's all just part of the cycle of life. The real problem isn't the CO2 that was bound by plants during the last few decades and is now released again. The real problem is the CO2 that was bound millions of years ago and is now being released again, destabilizing the climate mankind has enjoyed recently.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:1, Informative)
By "credentials", I meant jobs & job titles, not necessarily their degrees. Sorry, poor word choice.
Nonetheless in neither of these examples has anyone had their jobs of titles taken away. Dyson, as eminent as he may be, simply made wildly uniformed comments about a field in which is not expert and was quite correctly slated for the nonesense he spouted. Try posting some technically inaccurate of false points in a technical discussion and see what happens to you. Doh!
The other case is more potentially more serious - though the removal of his title hasn't actually taken place. Perhaps the problem here was that we should maintain a separation between academia and the state. It is understandable that a government which has a positive policy in one direction would not want a state official maintaining a diametrically opposed view, especially if that view is so abberant. On the other hand, academic freedom ought to guarantee (to a point) the right of an academic to be wrong.
In any case no noted scientist has lost their job or credentials and even the honorific title you have pointed to is still in place. On the contrary AGW scepticism has in fact been a profitable position to adopt.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Informative)
Weather is not climate [nasa.gov].
Trying to predict the weather is a LOT more difficult than predicting climate. Predicting the weather compared to climate is like predicting the output of a Random Number Generator over the next 14 iterations compared to the output of a RNG over the next 1000 or more.
Over 14 iterations the RNG (assuming 0-1 range), the average is likely to vary significantly from 0.5 and predicting which side of 0.5 it will fall is impossible, but over 1000 iterations, it will be very close to 0.5.
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:2, Informative)
As far as my history books go, Greenland has been a frozen semi-continent
From Wiki:
From 986 AD, Greenland's west coast was colonised by Icelanders and Norwegians in two settlements on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[8] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture occupying the northern and eastern parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. The settlements, such as Brattahlid, thrived for centuries but disappeared sometime in the 15th century, at the time of one given date for the onset of the Little Ice Age.[9] It is debated[who?] whether data from ice cores indicate that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years.
Re:The mere fact he was attacked speaks volumes (Score:2, Informative)
Speaks volumes about how much "climate scientists" believe in their own evidence : Not. At. All. Clearly they believe repression is necessary to sustain the global warming theory (never mind anthropogenic global warming).
Represssion?! Please! They guy says some stupid stuff and he get called out for it. No matter how reputable he once was, he is not immune to criticism when he makes foolish statements.
At this stage warming cannot be doubted without doubting either temperature measurement (and since this has been a point of contention for several decades it's pretty much worked out) or statistical methods themselves. As far as the anthropogenic part the isotope studies seem to be the smoking gun, or don't you think?
Not believe the evidence? Are you for real? Have you even done the most basic reading here? Have you read the WG1 report of the AG4? Even the tiny Executive Summary, have you?
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually many of those 'thousands of mainstream scientists' don't know how they got on, or how they can get off that list.
They don't know how they got on a list of contributing scientists? :o They got on the list by contributing. Hey!
ALL of this Man Made Climate Change initiative comes down to what?.. the IPCC.
As a man I take offence to that, women are every bit as responsible as we are. And you have put the cart before the horse --the IPCC was set up in response to concerns about Anthopogenic Global Warming (AGW).
And what are the IPCC? A U.N. organization (panel). So what does that make MMCC? A Political Agenda.
Doesn't follow! If someone repairs a window at the White House are they a politician? I.e. it is possible to do work for a political organisation that is not itself political.
The IPCC consists of three working groups. WG1is dedicated to synthesising the work done in the physical science that has a bearing on the subject. It's agenda, in contradistinction to WG3, is scientfic not political. But perhaps you are of a conspiritorial mindset, and you think I'm being terribly naive here.
I am always perplexed at how many intelligent people say, "even if we aren't sure about MMCC, we shouldn't take the risk".
You could have a point there, but it's not relevant, bcause we are sure at a 90-95% confidence level (depending on which particular finding we are discussing).
I would then ask you to recognize the real risks of handing power over to that organization.
OK, I've got you pegged now!
You error of thought here is to believe that in lowering our use of fossil fuels, looking for new energy sources and greater efficiency amount to handing over power to the IPCC, or the UN, or the Elders of Zion or whatever "organization" you had in mind.
I am relieved to see that you have no political agenda yourself. For a moment there I thought your jaundice was being motivated by projection [wikipedia.org].
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Informative)
In the 1850s hundreds of scientists in the best scientific schools and departments in London were in consensus that "Miasma" was what was causing Cholera outbreaks in Soho, London.
The one individual - John Snow (who I'm sure was called the 18th century equivalent of a "denialist" and "deluded" by the scientific community and the likes of you) who applied real rigourous science in the face of the "scientific consensus" found that to the contrary and completely correctly that it was tainted water not the air causing the outbreaks. Fortunately he had gone to great lengths to document and his research and the great and all knowing "scientific community" immediately reversed their position and accepted his better and obviously correct theory.
Oh wait they didn't, they did exactly what you are doing here.
They completely ignored his research, called him a fool and over the next ten years thousands more died, the equivalent of millions of pounds of taxes was spent on ridiculous "solutions" produced by the "scientific community" for the Government to fix the the so called "Miasma" problem all the while feeling smug in their knowledge that they had "consensus" and were 100% right.
It wasn't until nearly 10 years after his death that he was acknowledged as being correct.
We won't even go into the debacle that confronted Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis from the scientific "community" when he suggested horror of horrors that WASHING YOUR HANDS may prevent the transmission of disease.
Your argument is nothing more than the exact same argument the religious use to shut down dissent, an argument which goes "The establishment has formed consensus, and who are YOU to question what our leaders have studied".
A. Don't be so sure of yourself.
B. Stop placing so much faith in a new and very very undefined "science".
C. Calling people names and acting all smug makes you come off more like a born again christian than anything else.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:3, Informative)
While it's certainly better than, say, religion, it's pretty easy to overstate this as well. There's a reason most science degree programs don't teach much philosophy of science: because it's not really agreed on, and most scientists sweep it under the rug and hold to a sort of ad-hoc mash of positivism and falsificationism.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:5, Informative)
And as computers have increased in complexity from the models in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, so too have they increased in cost and size, right?
The capital required to make them, has, yes, most certainly. It's only because there are a lot more customers do we have the illusion of lower prices. But right now it costs billions of dollars to bring a CPU to market, and it didn't cost nearly that before. Before there were many players because the barriers to entry were not so high, but now, there are few. You even see this in software. How many operating systems were there twenty years ago? How many today? IT's the capital costs get higher and higher.
Re:Look carefully (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon [wikipedia.org]
Who performed a study partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute [wikipedia.org] and who has also worked as a consultant for the Marshall Institute. [wikipedia.org]
Mighty suspicious in my book.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:3, Informative)
Very apt analogy. Both acts are based on ignorant beliefs and not scientific reasoning.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:3, Informative)
It would be nice if someone who has evidence of global warming would actually produce it instead of just saying because I am a scientist and smarter than you.
Here you are. [www.ipcc.ch]