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."
15 wasn't enough? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm surprised a resolution of 15m wasn't enough. At the supposedly alarming rate that they are receding, wouldn't you think there wouldn't be such a need for this kind of precision?
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not impressed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also there's a lot of surface heating related to loss of ice. The change isn't slight either. The classic test is of coarse laying out black and white cards on a sunny day to see their temperature. The black is drastically hotter than the white. Ground and water are quite dark compared to ice so the increase is disproportionate to the ice loss. Loosing surface area of ice during the summer could equal or exceed warming from CO2 over the next century and it's often ignored in temperature projections. I would assume there was more than military secrecy behind suppressing the images. The goal of the oil lobbyist for some time has been to suppress data until it's too late to keep oil usage high and they've had a lot of influence for the last 8 years. Not that that influence has ended it's just no longer absolute.
Re:Name one reason this was classified (Score:4, Interesting)
FTA: (Score:1, Interesting)
To maximize the fullest potential of the LIDP dataset in scientific research, the committee recommended that the release include thumbnail copies of the images, exact information on the location of the images, calibration information, the time of acquisition, and the information on the pointing angle.
It takes time to scan an image at that resolution, so the "calibration information" probably gave info about the satellite's velocity. Combined with the "pointing angle," I'm pretty sure that means they just revealed the satellite's orbit, in agonizing detail.
(Presumably it is in a different orbit now.)
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Glaciers are like batteries. With a battery, you can store up power when you are near an outlet, so you can continue to operate your device later when you aren't near an outlet. This allows continuous operation irrespective of your proximity to a receptacle.
Glaciers store up water in the form of ice during the winter. Then, in summer when precipitation is less frequent, they melt and release that water. This allows continuous access to water irrespective of the immediate level of precipitation.
Yes, we could build more reservoirs, but talk about expense. Plus they suffer silting issues and large areas have to be destroyed to build them. And if the rains stop falling anyway, then what? Build more?
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if you intended the strawman or not, but allow me to debunk it anyway.
Yes, humans have lived in warmer climates with less glaciers, and colder climates with more glaciers.
There were also a hell of a lot less of them.
The danger of global warming/climate change has never been a threat to the overall existence of humanity (aside from ranting hyperbolic morons). It is however a threat to the maintenance of modern civilization if it causes enough damage to agricultural yields (whether or not it will do this is debatable, and very very complicated).
Re:Not impressed... (Score:2, Interesting)
measured in mere feet.
Actually, even that can probably be taken as significant because IT'S A GLACIER!!!
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is also a big difference between glaciers or rising oceans encroaching on ancient human settlements and them encroaching on our relatively immobile modern cities.
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't doubt the possible effects of climate change, and infact, I believe that we are affecting our climate, but this is a very interesting read: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=opening-of-northwest-passage Howell was my professor for remote sensing (a.k.a. class that has to do with satellite imagery) and also worked for the Canadian Ice Service in the Arctic on their ice breaker. Interesting read since it talks about the thickening of ice in the Northwest Passage. The most important part to note though is that although there are problems with ice cover in the Arctic region, these problems do not effect the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:1, Interesting)
Perhaps you could give some examples of climatologists who have been, how did you put it, "run out of town, belittled by their peers, or had their jobs or credentials taken away"? How exactly do you run out a climatologist out of town? A gun-toting climatologist possy? How do you take any scientists credentials away? Even scientists who have been caught faking data don't lose their doctorates and other degrees?
Or, to put another face on it, you know jack-fuck about academia works.
Re:Look carefully (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words these photos are 'evidence' of nothing. Minor, small scale year-to-year variation in ice flow patterns. The use of these photos in this manner is equivalent to claiming that because there was snow on my walk on January 10, 2008, but none on January 10, 2009, my environment has been ruined by Global Warming.
Yet there it is, fed to the reader at the very start of the story; no disclaimer provided. The pair of photos will now be repeated ad nauseam for years on end around the planet. Biden will have a blown up poster of these photos in his town hall kit by Wednesday. Fresh new memes the huckster elite will use goad "The West" into self inflicted poverty; "See? The planet is in peril! Man must be stopped!"
In almost all other matters you can take it as a given that around Slashdot you will find if not cynics then certainly skeptics. On the other hand if it has a Bush taint, a little anti-business flavor and it's wrapped up in a Global Warming ribbon you people suck it up like hicks at a Benny Hinn sermon.
You totally summed up what I took away from this article. The picture of the OMG Polar Bear on the tiny little iceberg was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the photos.
The self inflicted poverty thing, though, that blew my mind. I had never thought of that before.
My first response to this article got modded 'flamebait' so fast I was honestly totally surprised. I am glad to know that I am not the only one who has noticed a recent change in tone around here.
Last year, I had the opportunity to sit in on a lecture from one of my chemistry profs where he talked about some of the misinformation surrounding Global Climate Change. What struck me was when he started taking questions at the end and a kid stood up and said, "Global Warming is the only thing that everyone in the world can rally behind. It's a cause that unites everyone! Why would you want to take that away from us?!".
It was in this moment that I realized why Global Climate Change is so high on so many politicians' agendas: Global Climate Change is the new Religion. It's the one thing that you can get a whole new generation of positive-minded, well-intentioned people to get behind, if you can just convince them that they are all burdened under the Original Sin committed by their predecessors. The new agenda is to convince them that it is their responsibility to Redeem themselves through personal sacrifice.
Because that kid totally nailed it: They need this. They want this. They are dying for something to rally behind and GCC fits the bill, and what right do YOU have to take it from them?
It's the same old game with new players.
Re:So uh... (Score:4, Interesting)
High resolution satellite photos are classified because the resolution itself is classified. We don't want potential subjects to use photos of innocuous landscape to determine what features the camera is capable of resolving, because that has a lot of implications when you're trying to build decoys or hide troop movements. These particular images have probably been declassified because 1 meter is no longer something anybody is going to get excited over. These days you can buy commercial black-and-white imagery with that resolution.
What's cutting edge on the military side? I dunno. It's almost certainly classified.
Re:Look carefully (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words these photos are 'evidence' of nothing. Minor, small scale year-to-year variation in ice flow patterns.
In other words, these photos are circumstantial evidence. By themselves, they prove nothing. But when you combine them with the hundreds of thousands of other 'small scale' pictures showing retreating ice and weight them side by side with the far fewer images of advancing ice you get a clear pictures. It's still not 'proof' in a rigorous scientific sense, but it's far more than enough to hang a man.
What you seem not to understand in your rant is that these pictures are not 'evidence' and they are not misrepresenting what is going on with the planet. They are just representative samples to give a face to it. You can't show a close up of every location on the planet in a single page.
The climate is seriously fucked up, and we did it. That's a fact. Get over it. Or repent, if that's your thing. Waiting for the sea levels to rise so much that it's plainly obvious, then blaming everybody else for 'not doing anything about it' might make one feel better, but it doesn't do jack to help solve the problem.
In almost all other matters you can take it as a given that around Slashdot you will find if not cynics then certainly skeptics. On the other hand if it has a Bush taint, a little anti-business flavor and it's wrapped up in a Global Warming ribbon you people suck it up like hicks at a Benny Hinn sermon.
Not really. Mostly it is driven by intelligence and facts. It just so happens that reality has a liberal bias, after all.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:4, Interesting)
You should watch the movie Expelled, which covers exactly these topics, but dealing with Intelligent Design. It documents all the people who have lost their jobs or otherwise been punished for teaching ID... Except for one little detail: The movie lies throughout*. One of my favorite examples was when a was "forced" to remove his Intelligent design website from his university's web server. A shocking infringement of academic freedom! Except the professor taught electrical engineering, not evolutionary biology or anything remotely related. Oh, and he still has his job there, and continues to host the website, just on a different server. Maybe not so shocking after all.
Most of the Global Warming deniers have similar stories... They either didn't really suffer the fate that they claim, or the disciplinary act happened for other legitimate reasons but they use their belief to make a shitstorm for their being disciplined. Finally, in a few rare cases like that of George Taylor noted above, their beliefs truly do make them unable to adequately do the job that they were hired to do. You wouldn't hire someone who doesn't believe in evolution to teach a class on evolutionary theory, you wouldn't hire a communist to teach a class on stock trading, and you wouldn't hire someone who doesn't believe in abortion to teach a class on abortion procedures... Why would you hire someone who doesn't believe in global warming to educate the Governor on climate issues effecting his state?
* See Expelled Exposed [expelledexposed.com] for a full refutation of the topics covered in the movie. And to be honest, unless you want to study the techniques of how to (very badly) make a utterly dishonest documentary, I really can't recommend the movie... It doesn't even have much of Stein's normal wit.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:2, Interesting)
How convenient.
500 scientists of random disciplines add their names to a letter that's pro global warming and suddenly there's undisuptable "scientific consensus" and nobody can dare question it.
An eminent and brilliant scientist raises questions against it and suddenly he's "not qualified" and the mental gymnastics and discrediting of him begins.
There is real science that underlies much of the pro argument. Unfortunately the message is being buried by the useful idiots who want nothing more than a new personal religion for the new millenium, with all the associated hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance and fanatisism of any traditional religion.
In comparison to Dyson you are an insignificant nit. A great mind has some questions perhaps you should STFU and listen rather than trying to drag his reputation into the mud by implying "he's old therefore useless".
I'm sure he's seen his fair share of BS come out of the science community.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:3, Interesting)
"It will work in reducing emissions provided there is a switch to renewables (USA, Austrailia can manage) and/or nuclear (more densely populated countries). Otherwise, not so much."
Actually, it's much easier to reduce emissions produced from a central source. Even from coal. Carting around hundreds of pounds of scrubbing and sequestration equipment in a motor vehicle is more than a little bit counter-productive.
The republic of science (Score:5, Interesting)
Idealy that is correct but you* cannot have expertise (let alone time) to investigate every issue personally at some point (usually in the land of the lobbyists) a critic turns from a skeptic into a cherry-picking conspiracy nut. This is where "consensus" comes in ("consensus" = "The republic of science"), at some point you have to trust other investigators. So you pick investigators with a good track record to be your surrogates, the most credible are public institutions such as the Royal Academy or NAS or a million other well known acronymns.
If every one of those surrogates agrees on a particular point then it's part of a body of tentative "scientific facts" that are the evidence behind such phrases as "science says light and radio waves are the same thing at different frequencies" or "scientists say a comet or asteroid is the likely cause of the new spot on Jupiter".
A scientific education ( when done properly ) helps you to negotiate this mountain of information more easily and gives you a basic framework to the body of knowledge called science. However self education can also do the job, James Randi is one of my favorite skeptics and his only qualifications are in magic.
I'm not a climatologists but I have followed the topic for nearly three decades. I joined "Al Gore's religion" around 1997 (specifically because of the 1997 IPCC reports). Apparently this makes me harder to convince than NAS who in the late 50's warned the US government that AGW was occuring and have not changed their minds since. My logic goes like this...
Science says:
- The globe is warming.
- Most of the warming is due to CO2 emmissions
- Ignoring the problem is not a rational option.
1. Since 1997 I have not seen any convincing contra-evidence to the consesus. Some of it has made me do a lot of research, most of it has simply been old talking points perpetuated by the Heartland Institute and their affiliates.
2. I cannot name one credible scientific institution that disputes any part of the consesnsus.
3. Dyson is the only credible scientist I can name who still disputes part of the consensus. When he publishes his ideas everyone can check them out.
4. The most interesting critisisms come from members of our own "religion". Especially at my cult leader's web site (realclimate.org), they slay a few psuedo-skeptics for breakfast and then spend the day argueing over real questions such as the "missing methane" that was predicted by climate models.
5. Computer model ensembles for defined senarios give accurate but conservative forecasts. ( I have some expertise in FEA computer simulations and the mathematical training to understand the algorithims )
6. I live in SE Australia [google.com.au] that according to geologic evidence and recent experience is highly sensitive to a warming climate (natural or otherwise).
7. The fucking North Pole is melting.
*Disclaimer: not "you" personally.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Interesting)
I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir. - Demon Haunted World - Science as a candle in the dark [wikipedia.org]. - Carl Sagan (1995)
Re:The republic of science (Score:4, Interesting)
"Idealy that is correct but you* cannot have expertise (let alone time) to investigate every issue personally"
Typically, you don't need to. Anyone can read any study and get a basic idea of how believable the conclusions are. How big is the sample? Is there a control group? Does the data show causation, or only correlation? Is the data self-reported? There are a bunch of simple questions you can ask to gauge how much stock you should put in a study.
If you don't want to do that, you can, of course, figure out whether to trust the people who wrote the study. Some things to look out for is their qualifications, and who paid for the study.
And if you don't want to do that, I agree with you that trying to figure out what the consensus is is a good idea. Unfortunately, the media is typically a poor way of figuring this out, since they always feel to need to be fair and balanced, while reality is hardly ever fair and balanced. In this particular case, there is no question that the globe is warming, as you say. It is also clear from the data that CO2 is at least partly to blame for the increase in temperature, and there is further no question that mankind is responsible for a sizeable part of all CO2 emissions.
Unfortunately, if you go with many media reports, you don't really get that impression; hence my original point that you should be sceptical.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if global warming is a purely natural phenomenon, even if it didn't exist at all and this was all just a natural fluctuation, the idea of global warming has been very good for us as a whole.
It's encouraged an ecological awareness, and an understanding that our actions do have an impact on the world around us beyond the immediate.
This is progress that we need to make regardless of whether it's attributed to global warming, global cooling, global purpling, or the smell of some guy's socks in Kansas.
We can't get cocky and say, "Oh, global warming was a naturally occurring phenomenon, let's go back to burning dinosaurs in our cars and triple-wrapping our Endangered Burger." I've long been suspicious that mankind would be able to have this sort of effect in this amount of time for reasons which are too long to go into here, but I nonetheless support the progress that the moniker of global warming promotes. Even if our reasons turn out to be wrong wrong, the result is right.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Interesting)
All of this is to say that we shouldn't bother doing anything at all. Here's the kickers though, 1) as the GP stated, if we don't find another portable fuel source from oil especially, we're in big trouble
Well, no because, if the price of oil stays high, then we switch over to synthesis methods. We could do Fischler Tropf from coal and get the energy from nuclear power.
As for CO2 levels, if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions, it's safe to say that the damage will be worse. So, before Bush was elected we had the chance with the Kyoto accord to choose between minimal damage and damage, now we have the choice to choose between some damage and more damage. I
The Chinese and Indian economies have more to do with the elevated CO2 emissions at this point than anything Bush ever did. Right now there is a single coal mine fire in China that cranks out as much CO2 as the USA does cars. Even if Bush has signed Kyoto, it would have been just an ineffective economic suicide for the USA. The Chinese and Indians will never sign.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your statement seems to imply there is no point in going any further with advancing efficiency because of costs right now.
No, what I am saying, and what my next prediction will be, is that consumers will wind up giving up other things have a poorer lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly.
And, by the way, the question is not whether or not you put a 2009 Civic in front of engineers in the 1950s, the question is, if it were legal to build a 1950s car, but with modern tools, how much cheaper would it be than the Civic? I bet it would be a lot.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Interesting)
You must really be blind (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you think that the rising temperatures in Greenland and Alaska and the shrinking north pole ice cover are lies? Come on, that's about as retarded and paranoid as the flat earthers. Just look at the pictures, man. They won't ALL be lying to you.
As for money to made with carbon credits, up until now it hasn't exactly worked very well, has it?
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just about everything that is built using finite resources. A U.S. penny is more complex now than it was in 1809 (copper-clad zinc vs. copper) but it's a hell of a lot cheaper. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re:Look carefully (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute [sourcewatch.org]
Good for a start...