CIA Teams Up With Scientists To Monitor Climate

MikeChino writes "The CIA has just joined up with climate researchers to re-launch a data-sharing initiative that will use spy satellites and other CIA asets to help scientists figure out what climate change is doing to cloud cover, forests, deserts, and more. The collaboration is an extension of the Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis program, which President Bush canceled in 2001, and it will use reconnaissance satellites to track ice floes moving through the Arctic basin, creating data that could be used for ice forecasts." Even though the program is "basically free" in terms of CIA involvement, the Times notes: "Controversy has often dogged the use of federal intelligence gear for environmental monitoring. In October, days after the CIA opened a small unit to assess the security implications of climate change, Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, said the agency should be fighting terrorists, 'not spying on sea lions.'"

Comments

Re:Some people...

[magsol]

I would almost think this would be the perfect opportunity for all those whining senators and representatives over the CRU not-debacle to institute some governmental oversight.

Re:Climate change is a security threat

[riverat1]

The IPCC report is out of date on the subject of sea level rise. Current estimates are 1-2 meters by 2100. That doesn't sound like a lot but how much land does Florida and the gulf coast lose if sea level rises 3+ feet? And don't think it stops in 2100. It will take several hundred years for the climate and sea levels to reach a new equilibrium.

Re:Climate change is a security threat

[DragonWriter]

Well, considering that anthropogenic climate change is probably a bigger threat in the long run than terrorism it's good that the CIA is helping.

Note also that while the evidence strongly supports the anthropogenic contribution to climate change, the security threat posed by climate change and the national security reasons to monitor, understand, and prepare to deal with the effects of climate change are independent of whether or not it is of anthropogenic origin.

The effects of climate change, not its causes, are the source of the security threats.

Re:Climate change is a security threat

[Totenglocke]

And where did I present a conspiracy theory? I'm talking about documented facts, many (if not all) of which have even come across slashdot in recent weeks.

Also, isn't the vast majority of official temperatures all distributed by the same group in the UK that was proven to have manipulated the data? It kind of destroys any one else (regardless of their intentions) doing an accurate study if the only numbers they have to work with are the same falsified ones.

There's also documentation of the temperatures being collected in all sorts of places that don't fit the guidelines for where they should be placed - such as some that have been found placed directly under the vent from a buildings furnace.

But hey, why bother actually truly looking at the facts (and look at those who try to manipulate them) when we can just say "The debate is settled! Now lets pass some laws to damn our economy and knock us back to the stone age!" If this was any other type of science (physics, electrical engineering, whatever), everyone would be making a big deal about how you need to be completely accurate and ensure that the data is in fact legit. But when it comes to something that offers the promise of lots of money for saying what politicians want to hear or getting specific parties elected, all of the sudden no one cares much about being thorough.

Re:Climate change is a security threat

[riverat1]

Yes, I'll give you that, regardless of source it's a threat. But since global warming is largely of anthropogenic origin we can reduce the threat by reducing our contribution to it.

Re:Climate change is a security threat

[ArcherB]

Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming, YOU are the one who needs to prove there isn't one (and I seriously doubt you can show me any good evidence that there ISN'T a link, as 'a definite link' is what the facts show.)

You can't prove a negative. I thought you'd be smart enough to know that. Do you really need someone to post the link of the thousands of scientists who are not part of the consensus? Were you not paying attention when the emails were released trying to shut those scientists out of journals?

You really shouldn't accuse someone else of ignoring the evidence when you obviously have no problem ignoring it yourself.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

There! I disproved your "consensus". Now PROVE that AGW is real.

Re:Deniers

[joocemann]

Wow. You cannot have possibly read the message you replied to!

It is clear to me that he used logic and evidence to make his point.

And then you basically just spout more 'I don't belive it'...

I'll do you the same:

It doesn't matter how or why or what you say. You are wrong.

It doesn't matter if what you said makes any sense, Its fraudulent! I SAID SO!

The whole tone of your post twists plain facts means that you cannot be taken seriously.
--------

Now what?

If you knew anything you were talking about you wouldn't say stupid shit like "it doesn't matter". Guess what, the educated people say it DOES and you are NOT qualified in any way to be trusted when you say it doesn't.

I'm sick of hearing the opinionated layman spew his dogshit opinion about something far too complex for he/she to even understand, let alone have a valid theory about.

Re:Deniers

[joocemann]

You don't even have the skills to criticize.

GTFO.

Didn't you ever learn not to talk unless you know what you're talking about?

Ding! Add another opinionated layman to the roster, Bob! I've found another!

Re:Climate change is a security threat

[ArcherB]

What you will not find is a consensus on how much it affects the global temperature.

Wrong. Climate sensitivity is expressed as the temperature increase due to a doubling of CO2. Modern estimates assign a maximum likelihood value of 2.9C, with a 95% confidence that it's less than 4.9C but greater than 1.7C.

Oh wait! Are those the same models that were used to predict a steady increase in global temperatures? You know, the ones that didn't predict the coldest winter the northern hemisphere in decades or more?

Sorry, but when I see stuff like what you just typed and the hockey stick graph and emails to shut out skeptics and scientists that call it a travesty when data doesn't match the models all while Britain just had its worst snowfall in 50 years, the midwest measuring snow by the foot, Iowa temps a full 30 degrees below normal, Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years, Vermont setting the 'all-time record for one snowstorm' and people are literally dying from the cold... you have to step back and wonder if you'd been had!

Re:Climate change is a security threat

[Rockoon]

Seems to me we've got a lot to worry about if we get into "what if" scenarios. Perhaps we should stick with the known world.

I propose that it is FAR preferable for the CIA to point those satellites outward to watch for those asteroids YOU bring up, than it is to waste them watching for global warming.

So far, NOBODY has listed an actual global warming "THREAT."

And there is no "what if" about asteroids hitting this planet. It is not a question of "if." Its a question of "when." The same goes for radicals using nukes. Its not a question of "if." Its a question of "when" and "where."