Out of the Warehouse: Climate Researchers Rescue Long-Lost Satellite Images

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Once stashed in warehouses in Maryland and North Carolina, images and video captured from orbit by some of NASA's first environmental satellites in the mid-1960s are now yielding a trove of scientific data. The Nimbus satellites, originally intended to monitor Earth's clouds in visible and infrared wavelengths, also would have captured images of sea ice, researchers at the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center realized when they heard about the long-lost film canisters in 2009. After acquiring the film—and then tracking down the proper equipment to read and digitize its 16-shades-of-gray images, which had been taken once every 90 seconds or so—the team set about scanning and then stitching the images together using sophisticated software. So far, more than 250,000 images have been made public, including the first image taken by Nimbus-1 on 31 August 1964, of an area near the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Besides yielding a wealth of sea ice data, the data recovery project, which will end early next year, could also be used to extend satellite records of deforestation and sea surface temperatures."

Comments

warehouse

[rossdee]

is this from Warehouse 13?

Re:warehouse

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Yeah. They used a look-into-the-future technology to determine that data collected and stored in the 60s might contradict your political paranoia 50 years later. It's the same tech they used to print Obama's birth announcement in Hawaiian newspapers because (again) they knew that one day a Kenyan would try to get elected to the White House.

Straight to the pointless debate

[i kan reed]

I read this article earlier.
Here's the things people are going to fixate on, without having near enough data actually genuinely analyze them.

The article states that Antarctic Ice was way larger in are in 1964 than it is today(or was in 1972, the until-now earliest satellite data date)
And the deniers are going to fixate on the fact that there were holes in the ice.

And since there's not a lick of expert analysis vis-a-vis the implications for climate change involved there, I can't bring myself to care, what some people on slashdot are going to conclude without the numbers.

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[geekoid]

Not likely since AGW is based on science, and scientific method. Where as deniers are just a bunch of dolts with no science behind them. Ask yourself this: How come AGW deniers never talk about the actual science?
They make post like you do: No evidence, no data, every scientist, every agency, every competing country are all in some conspiracy and only the enlightened few* can see 'The Truth!'

*get over yourself already

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't just flamebait. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[ledow]

And until someone works out what we're supposed to do about it, we can all sit around and argue about whether or not we caused it. Like a bunch of people in a traffic accident swearing and shouting at each other and not one bothering to use the brakes. Sure, knowing it's us must lead us to find out why it's us, which might lead us to find out how we stop doing whatever-it-is.

Fact is, in EVERY discussion, every news story, every article, every paper I see, there's endless blame, "confirmation", etc. and yet not one bright idea about what to do about it.

Let's make it easy. I will happily take the assumption that we're somehow doing this. I'll even assume that how we THINK we're doing this is exactly how it's happening (that's not a given, by a long shot). And I'll assume that the catastrophic predictions are all correct.

Just quite what the fuck are we actually doing about it? What can we do about it? Does stopping doing those things actually hurt us more in the long run than the most dire of consequences otherwise (seriously, if we have to knock energy production down even a single order of magnitude, life changes forever for everyone on the planet)? What if all we can do is slow the change and not stop it? Is it then really worth all the huge, massive, political posturing, scientific research, bitching and arguing if all we can do is, say, buy ourselves an extra 10 years at ENORMOUS cost to our way of life?

Honestly, what kind of measures are we suggesting? How do we get international co-operation on those measures? What if we DON'T get international co-operation on those measures? How does that impact the average person, the average industry, the average production cycle? Are we going to have to abandon modern life and just-those-inventions that might save us (e.g. producing new large-scale energy projects) in order to survive at all?

I'm happy, as someone of a scientific mind, to entertain any amount of what-if's. But the ones that are never addressed boil down to "What if we're right?" And, to be honest, the answers I find from that are either scarier or more lacking than anything the doomsayers might chime in with about sea level rises, etc.

Whether or not I believe the evidence, the way it's handled, or the final conclusion, I still am interested in the suggested outcome. Because, in the AGW debate more than any, it seems to be a lot of political posturing to get someone to agree - to what? A complete absence of solutions. As such, I don't see the "profit" (intellectual or otherwise) in someone choosing any particular path beyond their own beliefs and this, more than anything, makes me question quite what we're hoping to get out of "winning" the argument.

Seriously. An utterly serious question. If we are right, what do we do, and how does that affect us? Because I believe (i.e. zero evidence) that, actually, the cure might be worse than the disease if it's this poorly researched and nobody's really got anything viable. If we can't point at something at say "If we spent more money on that, or researched this, or got those people to co-operate, it would solve the problem" then what - besides arguing about the cause - is ever going to change about the situation?

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[lgw]

What would you expect to happen if there are correctable errors in the data and the theories are correct?

What would you expect to happen if there are correctable errors and the theories are false, but the researcher was dodgy? Same result.

Data that doesn't allow you to distinguish these cases isn't scientific. That's the difference between "evidence" and "pleasing story", after all. Reproducibility is everything: the scientific method is built on the foundation that a skeptical opponent of your research can repeat your experiment (or measurement) and be forced to come around. If you're "adjusting" your data, the methodology you use is very much part of this process. The raw data should be presented, the method of adjustment should be presented, and the rationale for the method should itself stand against skepticism. (E.g., if a ground station went from rural to urban over time, others can compare similar situations and see if your adjustment was appropriate).

But if the raw data is destroyed? Well, pardon my skepticism.

(And if you think scientific researchers are perfect angels, not humans vulnerable to bias or outright cheating, take a look at the reproducibility of biochem synthesis journals some time. Eesh.)

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[radtea]

I dont know about the satellite data, but in the case of the surface record, there can be no scientific reason to adjust temperature measurements. Such measurements are the core of the science .. things are measured and the values are what they are. It is never scientific to process past measurements and then call them "corrected" (which is what the climate folks are doing with the surface record.)

That statement is false.

Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference.

There are many reasons why one might get the idea that past temperature records have systematic inaccuracies that may require correction. The urban heat island effect is one large one, which tends to produce higher uncorrected temperatures over time. The phenomenon is simple in principle: cities generate heat, have more dark surfaces, and trap heat in buildings etc which gets re-radiated at night. Weather stations sited near cities have typically become increasingly surrounded by them over the past century, because cities have grown.

Ergo, the instrumental temperature record from many stations needs to be corrected downward to account for this effect, if we want to pull out the environmental temperature (what we are generally interested in.)

This is what we do all the time in science. We start with a raw instrumental measurement and then apply various theory-dependent corrections to infer the underlying quantity we are actually interested in. For example, at the LHC, physicists measure the raw detection rates of various particles in multiple detectors, and then correct them for known background rates etc (frequently using ancillary measurements in the same detectors to determine those rates) to infer the presence (or absence) of the Higgs boson.

What you are saying is "never scientific" is in fact the core of the scientific process, and it makes no difference if the original data were taken today or fifty years ago: they are open to justifiable correction by anyone who sees fit. If you have the idea that the corrections applied are unjustified, feel free to challenge them, but please don't go promoting your fallacious vision of what science is and how it works.

And by the way, if you are interested in what an analysis of the uncorrected instrumental temperature record looks like at one particular station, here is an example: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=...

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[blue9steel]

That doesn't make any sense. Of course you correct the data, however you also publish the uncorrected data and the correction method you used so that others can verify your work.

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[Garfong]

Or another way of thinking of it is you're using the measured data to estimate a hidden variable which is what you're really interested in. E.g. in this case you have a number of measurements near cities, and you're trying to estimate the global/wide-area average temperature. So you apply a correction to get from city temperature to an estimate of the wide-area average temperature.

(This is mostly in response to GP).

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[MightyYar]

Or, deniers were simply pissing off the researchers.

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[MightyYar]

If you are measuring sea level from the same spot every year, and then later you find out that the spot you are on has been rising slowly over the years, you would be perfectly scientific in trying to account for the rise when using the now known-to-be-flawed data. The important thing is that you be open about what you did with the raw numbers so that others can see what you did.

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[geekoid]

No we have not seen 'ice grow like crazy'. Not at all.
We have seen some more snow fall in some area, but the overall loss dwarfs that new snow fall.

Stop thinking surface, and start think mass.
Antarctica and Greenland are losing 450 billion tons of ice every year

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[geekoid]

You are not a skeptic. Skeptics use critical thinking skills. You are a denier who thinks they are skeptical.

"The ground station temperature data has been quite thoroughly manipulated, always "adjusted" in the direction of confirming the theories of the researcher making the adjustment, Pardon my skepticism about that data."
False.

" But now there's this new satellite data that must be "processed" to be understood."
Like ALL satellite data.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Why don't you turn your so called skepticism on those very claims?

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean where they say "Observed changes in global mean surface air temperature since 1950 (from three major databases, as anomalies relative to 1961–1990) are shown in Figure 1.4. As in the prior assessments, global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with
observations over climate timescales (Section 9.4). Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short timescale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments. The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the FAR projections (IPCC, 1990), and not consistent with zero trend from 1990, even inthe presence of substantial natural variability (Frame and Stone, 2013)."

Is that where they dismiss the models outright? Perhaps *you* should read it.

Your claim does not stand up to scrutiny.

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[geekoid]

they are deniers, not skeptics. Skeptics apply critical thinking and make an effort to understand the science.
Deniers don't do either.

Re: Straight to the pointless debate

[caveqat101]

What part of conspiracy theory don't you get? Government classifies items,like pictures ,paper and other erratta on a daily basis, and ships it to warehouses, called NARA. There you have a chance to see it if its of the right item requested. Some one forgot to destroy this before it was found. Conspricy theory just say ooo! Mr. Carter, look what I found. Sometimes its right on the mark.

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[riverat1]

The satellite data, however, has no such shadow over it. It's good, solid data ...

You don't think satellite data is highly processed? Satellites can't measure atmospheric temperature directly at all. What they measure is microwave emissions from atmospheric gases (mostly O2 I think) as a proxy for temperature. Then taking into account the orbit (and possible decay of orbit), time of day and other factors they calculate a temperature for a rather nebulous area of the atmosphere (not the surface temperature). The good solid data we get from the satellites is a measure of microwave emissions, the rest is derived from that.

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[nadaou]

I happen to live near one of the main weather stations which was caught up in that FOX News brouhaha and happen to know about the local history. tl;dr as usual, the whole story was all a load of vaporous bullshit. And apparently it worked since you took the bait.

One hundred years ago the local weather station was established outside the harbor master's office down by the docks (and the water). The city grew up and forty years ago or so the weather station was moved 500 feet up a hill to outside the local observatory, which is surrounded by forest.

Moving a temperature sensor away from a large body of water, out of a "heat island" of now-paved urban roads, out of a canyon of concrete and glass buildings, and to a higher elevation will all change the readings of the sensor. If you want to keep a continuous record before and after moving, before and after various construction projects and re-roofing nearby, and before and after population changes, you're going to have to figure out and apply a correction factor for each of these things.

There is nothing particularly unusual about our local weather station's story which hasn't been repeated in most cities around the world. So it is not surprising that noisy long term time series need to be cleaned up before being fed into sensitive predictive models. It would be dishonest not to if you know there was a change in the sampling history which required it.

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[tjstork]

There is nothing particularly unusual about our local weather station's story which hasn't been repeated in most cities around the world. So it is not surprising that noisy long term time series need to be cleaned up before being fed into sensitive predictive models. It would be dishonest not to if you know there was a change in the sampling history which required it.

But at that point, aren't you really basically just making it up? Granted, even satellite temperature sensors drift, but it seems that the real long term answer here is to just accept that the historical data is going back in time, and we're really just "guessing" at previous climate, as we simply didn't have the foresight to measure it correctly for the way we want to use it.

Re:Straight to the pointless debate

[riverat1]

I'm sorry but you're going to have to prove that surface temperature measurements a "being adjusted after the fact to fit theory". A lot of people assert that but they never bother to seek out the scientific explanations for those adjustments. Here is a blog post about the reasons and methods for adjustments to the surface temperature record with cites to relevant peer reviewed papers about it. If you want to claim the adjustments to surface temperature records are invalid that is the information you need to refute.

It could be illegal.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

These film were stored in North Carolina. It is actually illegal there to predict sea level rise. There is some question about whether the law makers there banned the prediction of sea level rise or the banned sea level rise itself. But anyway these NASA scientists need to tread carefully in North Carolina.

Re:It could be illegal.

[clovis]

These film were stored in North Carolina. It is actually illegal there to predict sea level rise. There is some question about whether the law makers there banned the prediction of sea level rise or the banned sea level rise itself. But anyway these NASA scientists need to tread carefully in North Carolina.

Total bullshit on the part of the media.
You've got to learn to not believe what reporters say. Read the actual bill.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/...

"The Commission shall direct the Science Panel to include in its five-year updated assessment a
comprehensive review and summary of peer-reviewed scientific literature that address the full
range of global, regional, and North Carolina-specific sea-level change data and hypotheses,
including sea-level fall, no movement in sea level, deceleration of sea-level rise, and
acceleration of sea-level rise. When summarizing research dealing with sea level, the
Commission and the Science Panel shall define the assumptions and limitations of predictive
modeling used to predict future sea-level scenarios. "

The first version of the bill was the one that the news picked up and, well, just plain made up bald-faced lies about.
Here it is:
"Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios
of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant,
peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be
one rate for the entire coast, but rather the Commission shall consider separately oceanfront and
estuarine shorelines."

See the part about not including 'acccelerated rates of sea-level rise"? That's the controversial part of the bill. By taking the most extreme sea-level rise predictions, some sea-side community was announcing a need for huge sums of money to prepare for the "predicted rise". The bill was simply saying that you had to use peer-reviewed data and historical trends.

I don't have a problem with the legislature requiring both historical and peer-reviewed data for predictions of sea-level rise, and I cannot imagine any scientist having a problem with that.

Re:It could be illegal.

[dywolf]

It's modded funny, yet it's all too sadly true.
City and State planning commission folks wanted to be prepared, and incorporate future sea level rise into any future construction on the coast, such as docks, ports, etc. Anything that could be affected by rising seas.

So naturally the state legislature reacts by banning any such considerations or planning for the future and force all construction to stay in harms way. Which is absolutely idiotic. And frankly, it's a fundamental ethics violation for any civil or construction engineers to follow this law. knowing that it will directly put such projects at risk for future damage, the same as leaving out structural fireproofing or any other common safety practice.

Re:It could be illegal.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

This was the original bill they were circulating. See the section 2e that mandates the use of linear interpolation? Limits the data set to post 1900? They were dropped only after getting nationwide attention.

These legislators have been slipping such clauses into the law all the time, and this time they got caught. Otherwise they would have happily forced the value of pi to be 3.0 exact.

Do you have problems with the legislators decreeing what interpolation technique the scientists must use? Limiting the data sets they might use? Or do you modify the bill after getting caught with hands in the cookie jar and then whip up prodigal quantities of false outrage?

Re:It could be illegal.

[ljw1004]

Total bullshit on the part of the media... The first version of the bill was the one that the news picked up and, well, just plain made up bald-faced lies about.
Here it is:

"Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios
of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant,
peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends."

Clovis, how do you reconcile the "first version" text you quoted with this one? http://www.nccoast.org/uploads...

These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time
period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate
future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.

This version of the text totally reverses your conclusions. Was this "linear-only" text earlier than the one you quoted? Or did it come afterwards, indicating that the legislative draft actually got worse over time?

only 16 shades of grey?

[ilsaloving]

They could have had a much more interesting picture if they had used 50.

thanks

[micahraleigh]

Glad to see something related to this topic that is not brimming over with pre-masticated opinions.

Re:using sophisticated software

[JWW]

What makes it sophisticated?

Well my first guess would be geolocating the images to the proper location on the earth, projecting the data in to a digitized map grid projection and storing the data in a science archival format.

Re:Too late for that.

[Punko]

Summer Ice retreat in the arctic has never been more severe in our records. Ice thickness has similarly never been so low. The extent of winter ice is entirely a different matter. Its the difference between "weather" and "climate".

Re: Too late for that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a paper from the group discussing sea ice extent in 1964, using the Nimbus data:
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/699/2013/tc-7-699-2013.pdf