Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Formerly Classified Global Warming Spy Photos Released

Posted by kdawson on from the inconvenient-images dept.

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."

17 of 791 comments (clear)

  1. The glaciers are retreating! by Anonymous+CowHardon · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least we're winning the battle against something!

    1. Re:The glaciers are retreating! by DrMrLordX · · Score: 5, Funny

      I never liked them much anyway. So cold and impersonal . . .

    2. Re:The glaciers are retreating! by jdcope · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At least we're winning the battle against something!

      Of course climate change is happening. It always has. The question are WHAT is happening, and HOW the information is treated. If anyone, including noted scientists, say anything remotely the opposite of the climate change cabal, they are run out of town, belitted by their peers. They have their jobs & credentials taken away. That sounds more like the status quo is trying to hide something to me. When I was growing up, I was always taught to question the mainstream. But if you do that when it comes to climate change, you are labeled a nut. And now we all these new fangled ways to make money from climate change. And I guarantee you, the poor & middle class will be the ones paying. The rich just buy their way out with carbon credits.

    3. Re:The glaciers are retreating! by jdcope · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    4. Re:The glaciers are retreating! by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 5, Insightful

      admit it would suck to blow all the billions and trillions of dollars only to find out there ain't a damned thing you can do

      There are many reasons to migrate from fossil fuels, the most compelling being that they're going to run out very soon. The changing climate is also a worry (which we wouldn't want to encourage to change faster than it already is), but it's not the only reason, and the money spent on migrating to alternative energy sources certainly wouldn't be wasted.

    5. Re:The glaciers are retreating! by Capsaicin · · 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.

      ... take off that damned Che Guevara t-shirt!

      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
    6. Re:The glaciers are retreating! by twostix · · 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.

  2. Re:Did we not already know this? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
  3. 1m resolution = One Meter Per Pixel by NoName+Studios · · 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.

  4. So uh... by acehole · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
    1. Re:So uh... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:So uh... by WoodenTable · · Score: 5, Funny

      It has nothing to do with the ice, really. It's all about where much of the ice is; specifically, a great deal of it is located in a little-known nation just north of America. The American public is largely unaware of it, and knowledge of its existence could shock them to their very cores, should it come out. The only reasonable response is a blanket of secrecy.

      This also explains a great deal about Alaskans. Since this "shadow nation" is located east of Alaska, not north, they have a different view of it compared to the other states. And it has changed them.

  5. Re:How long has this been going on? by MrMista_B · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How long as it been accelerating?

    Oh, right, only since the Industrial Revolution.

  6. Re:Did we not already know this? by anagama · · 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?

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  7. Picture witt ice is abnormal, not picture without by WaxParadigm · · 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/
    Video (from NASA): http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~10~10~71195~176482:Ice-Surge-in-Barrow,-Alaska

  8. The mere fact he was attacked speaks volumes by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. The republic of science by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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.