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."
At least we're winning the battle against something!
"Glaciers are not permanent structures. So what?"
Neither are humans, particularly when they have no fresh water.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
Why was a spy satellite taking snaps of the ice classified? The ice launching an incursion into US territory? Are they afraid the terrible secret of ice will be revealed?
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
How long as it been accelerating?
Oh, right, only since the Industrial Revolution.
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!
How long have been watching this debate repeat itself over and over and over again in the precise and exact same and identical manner?
Oh, right, only since we have Slashdot.
"it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour"
that's the leap that you aren't being very convincing about. there seems to be this movement of "omgz everything humanz do is wrong!" which isn't science.
Perhaps if you stopped attacking straw men, you might realize that there is ample science to back up this point.
Earth's survival was never in jeopardy. It's Human survival we worry about.
The pictures aren't OF ice, ice just happens to be in them. The pictures are OF boats/subs/etc. The idea is that they're old enough that no one cares that we knew where that cruiser was 10 years ago.
Man -- I was about to mod you up till you hit on the racist BS. Overbreeding is rampant everywhere.
The fact is, the single most polluting thing a person can do is have kids. I'm intentionally child free so in the balance of things, I could drive a hummer, alone, with extra lead weights in the back, 100 miles per day. I could leave my lights on 24/7, run AC to frigid temps in the summer, blast the heat in the winter, keep a propane flare burning ten feet tall day and night in the back yard, and still not come close to the devastation caused by parenthood.
I don't actually live my life that way, because I'm a bit frugal. What mystifies me is why words such as "conservation" and "conservative" have such differing application when both imply frugality to me -- frugality in how we use environmental resources, and frugality in how we use financial resources. I want to see the birth of the frugal party. Pun intended.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour" that's the leap that you aren't being very convincing about. there seems to be this movement of "omgz everything humanz do is wrong!" which isn't science. global warming advocates can't remove the emotion from their arguments, which makes me suspicous.
The great thing about science is that the OP doesn't need to be convincing. Anyone can look at the data and reach a conclusion.
In case you don't want to become an expert in the field, however, and are willing to accept an overwhelming majority of existing experts, you would find that "97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures." (from the OP's link).
Perhaps if you didn't accept that poll, you might find that "Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.". And so on.
Personally I don't get it. Why is it so hard to accept? Reliance on academic authories has its pitfalls of course, but a certain point you need the humility to accept that there is no debate over this particular point among experts.
It reminds me of the "debate" over whether or not 0.999... = 1. Non-mathematicians will swear up and down that it can't be. They'll pull out everything they've got, but at the end of the day, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it so. Read with a careful eye, but c'mon, the cause of the current change in global mean temperatures is no longer a debate.
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?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
And there you have it folks- a classical false argument by claiming that the other party said something they did not.
No one's saying the industrial revolution was a sin. Sin doesn't come into anything; this isn't religion.
The industrial revolution was the beginning of an upward swing in our carbon emissions. The emissions have had a warming effect. We can subsequently choose what we'd like to do about this, especially in light of technology available now which wasn't available at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Earth doesn't particularly care if it gets warmer. We (and a number of other species) probably do. If we don't like the consequences of warming, we have the option to decide that they're bad enough for us to take action to change them.
But that's a little too logical, apparently, so you go on perverting arguments so that you can claim to "win" without actually standing on any remotely logical basis.
The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
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).
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
See, this is why I try not to get into the specifics. Climate change is a complex, interdependant subject and you can cherry-pick any result you like, but that doesn't mean you understand what's actually happening.
Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
It's absurd to be basing multi-trillion dollar policy decisions on this garbage.
But you have to base them on something, and the policy-makers are right to base them on the overwhelming consensus of climatologists. What else do they have to go by? Even if those 97% somehow turned out to be wrong, isn't it better at this stage to mould the policies so that our impact on the climate is as small as possible, just in case?
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
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.
"I do not avoid women, Mandrake . . . but I do deny them my essence." - Gen. Ripper
Here is a recent and well researched report [scienceand...policy.org] on the $79 billion that has been spent by the US government (only) on climate research over the last 20 years.
Interesting. It mentions that ~$4 billion per year that goes into producing scientific papers that indicate that global warming is happening, but it doesn't mention anything about the trillions of dollars involved in the fossil fuel industry. The institute that put out that paper - where does it get its funding?
So... the vast majority (if not all) climatologists are actually lying about their conclusions because they want to get certain candidates elected, thus helping to perpetuate a political climate which is favourable to them being given grants to pursue further studies in the field that they've been lying about.
Or, they're just telling the truth. Which one was the simplest explanation again?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
If you're simply "Questioning the Mainstream", you're missing the point somewhat. The point is not to question something specific; the point is to question everything. Not only should you be sceptic of people who believe that global warming is real and man-made, but also of those who deny this. In fact, what you should do in all cases is not trust anyone, but look at the studies and data yourself, and judge it on sound scientific reasons.
liberals
And this is the problem with people like you. You assume everything must be poitical. Well, not everything is. Especially not facts. What other scientific ideas are you willing to ascribe to politics? Gravity? Electromagnetism? Thermodynamics (that's even worse than climate change: it says we're really screwed). Evolution? ...logical that we're still warming up from it.
You don't think the climate scientists might have noticed that too? Perhaps if you actually took a look at the work that they do rather than simply spouting off you might rrealise that.
I'm aware that liberals with mod points will probably mod me troll for daring to disagree with them
You're not being daring. You're being an idiot.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Pointing out fallacies in the man made global warming theories is akin to walking around cursing people back in the middle ages. It only gets you burned at the stake, so why do it. When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science. That alone should make us all very suspicious.
Scientists spend their lives poking holes in other people's theories, for their own personal academic gain. Pull your head out of your ass and read the comments section of a journal. Of course, they are more along the lines of poking holes in the specific theory of T. Cobbley et. al., because few scientists are arrogent enough to believe they can single handedly poke holes in every single theory out there in one go.
And yes, anyone who says "aaaaa it's all wrong!!1!one" is going to be ignored since they bring nothing new to the debate.
There are too many instances of "we can't think of any other reason, so this must be man-made global warming", or "we have never seen this before, and we don't know what's causing it, but we're certain it's human emissions". I'm sorry, but you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause.
Are you talking about science or the popular press. If the former, then [citation needed]. For some reason many non scientists seem to confuse the two.
There are just too many variables. We can barely predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy (in some areas even that's stretching it), but we are supposed to believe any scientist that claims to have GLOBAL weather licked? I can't help but think those guys got an overdose of arrogance. Yes, they're very different things, but that's still faith, not science.
OK, this is a clear indication that you're a fool and have never bothered to verse yourself in even the basics of the field. Climate is not weather. Read that sentance. Think about it. Can I predict the weather this time next year in London? NO. Can I predict things about the climate (eg it won't be snowing)? Yes I can. That is the difference.
And here you are, blindly dismissing the work of thousands of people and caliming that they, not you are suffering from arrogance. I am frankly suprised that your ego is not so inflated that it has caused you to float off in to the sky.
electric
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. But see, you are at it again. Vastly over-simplifying EVERY SINGLE POINT.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's not really what I'd call a "debate". Only one side is reading and countering the other side's claims with rational arguments; the other side is simply parroting long-discredited talking points ad nauseam.
The funny thing? Both sides will agree with the above statement, but will disagree on its interpretation.
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).
It also proves that the grandparent posts were correct in asserting that anyone, no matter how reputable, finding anti-global-warming evidence is attacked. I mean, this guy is right up there with Fermi, Hawking, Feynman and other legends.
"If you're simply "Questioning the Mainstream", you're missing the point somewhat. The point is not to question something specific; the point is to question everything. Not only should you be sceptic of people who believe that global warming is real and man-made, but also of those who deny this. In fact, what you should do in all cases is not trust anyone, but look at the studies and data yourself, and judge it on sound scientific reasons."
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 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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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?
New technology is expensive, and it's difficult to find a cost effectiveness sweet spot. As new technology matures it becomes old technology, and old technology becomes increasingly inexpensive as time goes on. We find new, better, more efficient ways to manufacture the same device, and as it matures its cost efficacy also increases.
This is why radical shifts in technology are rare; it's unusual for dramatically new tech to be obviously superior to the old tech when it's still in its infancy. And so from this perspective when the required shift is not dictated by financial forces but some other force, financial reasons are not going to be one of the early motivating factors for the change.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Of course global warming is a political issue. Any issue which calls for governments to do something is a political issue. Claiming that global warming is not a political issue is about as disingenuous as claiming that intelligent design is not about religion.
Name one global warming activist whom does not think that the solution to the problem is to enact strict world wide government control on first world economies. Name on global warming activist that thinks that the best way to reduce CO2 emissions would be to encourage China, India, and other developing nations to adopt freedom and capitalism, so that their economies can progress as quickly as possible into the green tech era.
Well, the question is, does the increased fuel efficiency actually pay for itself?
Actually, no, that's not the question at all. The question is what are you going to do when oil is permanently above 100USD a barrel and climbing, or worse, constantly volatile? What are you going to do in 50 years when the supply of oil is tightly constrained and wars are being fought over supplies? We've had an easy ride so far due to fossil fuels just lying around with a lot of stored energy which is easy to release, but that's not going to last forever, and even if it were we'd be creating massive pollution problems (see China and India currently) if we stuck to things like coal power plants long term, quite apart from climate impacts.
The thing is, the more efficient you are, the more complex you are. The more complex you are, the more you cost.
I'm afraid you've just made this connection up. What examples make you feel this three-way relation is universally true as you assert?
Many things are complex and yet inefficient, and vice versa. To pick an example from power generation - photovoltaic cells are at present complex, and yet inefficient, whereas solar water heating is very simple (tube with water/salt mixture in it), and very efficient. Modern computers are more complex and efficient than the space shuttle ones, and yet cost less. etc. etc.
Just because new tech tends to be complex and costly does not mean it will always be so, and there is no overall 'law' which states that efficiency == complexity == cost, and your statistics are meaningless as they are predicated on this assumption.
Even if we stopped now, the glaciers are still going to melt.
We don't actually know with any certainty what's going to happen, save that it probably won't be pretty. We also know the different of a few degrees rise in temperature could mean metres in sea levels, and we have an awful lot of useful coastal land that would put underwater. As I have pointed out, there are many other reasons to stop using dirty fuels like coal anyway, quite apart from greenhouse gases and climate change. It might cost a little more in the short term, but in the long term it makes a lot of sense to diversify sources of energy and use ones with the least environmental impact.
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.