Slashdot Mirror
Formerly Classified Global Warming Spy Photos Released
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."
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.
My guess is some blanket policy against high resolution spy satellite photos of anything. Also, the arctic actually is currently a relatively hotly disputed area amongst the countries that border it due to the wealth of natural resources. Russia especially has made recent claims of more of a pie slice than what the other neighbors tended to agree with based on some underwater structures they explored.
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.
Glaciers have retreated before, many times, and the Earth survives.
The problem this time round (according to 97% of climatologists) 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.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Just so you don't go through the whole evening in suspense, it's in TFA - there are numerous puddles of sizes in meters that are important to the reflectivity of the ice. The older pics didn't resolve the puddles well - the newer ones do. Just better data.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
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.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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/
Video (from NASA): http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~10~10~71195~176482:Ice-Surge-in-Barrow,-Alaska
By "credentials", I meant jobs & job titles, not necessarily their degrees. Sorry, poor word choice. But here is one who was slapped down in Oregon- http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html And here is a prominent scientist that has been crapped on by his peers for not following the status quo- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
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.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
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.
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.
This is my sig.