Declassified Ice Loss Images
Written by Nancy Atkinson
Ice loss in Barrow Alaska from 2006 to 2007. Credit: US Geological Survey
Last week the US government released more than a thousand intelligence images of Arctic ice that have been used to help scientists study the impact of climate change. The images were taken by spy satellites, as part of the Medea program, which lets scientists request spy pictures from environmentally sensitive locations around the world. After they were taken, the Bush Administration released the photographs to the scientists but deemed them "unsuitable for public release." Earlier this month, the National Academy of Sciences recommended the Obama Administration declassify the photos, which they did within a few hours of the recommendation.
Various blogs are saying these dramatic images are faked, but since they are available through the US Geological Survey , that hardly seems likely. Over 700 images show changes of sea ice in various recent years from six sites around the Arctic Ocean, with an additional 500 images of 22 sites in the United States.
Ice loss in the Beaufort Sea. Credit: USGS
Scientists request images to be taken by intelligence satellites because the resolution is much greater, in some cases, than other available satellite images. According to Reuters, the newly declassified Arctic images have a resolution of about 1 yard (1 meter), a vast improvement on previously available pictures of sea ice which have a resolution between 15 and 30 meters.
Ice loss at the Bering Glacier. Credit: USGS
Sources: Reuters, USGS, TrueSlant
Filed under: Earth Observation
Tags: Climate ChangeRelated stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
July 27th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Not enough to be believable.. Those photos could of been shot in different seasons. One in the summer and one in winter. This planet, which has been here way before humans and probably way after humans is just doing what is does. It does not need humans to save it. Earth doesn't need humans to exist. So this whole idea that Global Warming is used as an effort to save the planet is just another deception to hide the real truth, global enslavement through taxation along with eugenics in order to cut the population by 80-90%. Think I'm a conspiracy theorist? Don't want to believe it? President Obama's new Czar of Science, John P. Holdren, wrote a book along with Paul R. Ehrlich called "EcoScience" suggesting an ideology of population control policies. Google it!
July 27th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=player_embedded
July 27th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Anything data thats the shape of hockey stick is BAD SCIENCE!
July 27th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Danny,
Bad science is when you express opinions with no data, and no sources to back you up. Kind of like your three posts.
I've always asked the question why is it the world bashes scientists when it comes to global warming, when we seem to take as fact 90% of the rest of the things they do…from discovering gravity, to nuclear weapons and cures for polio.
The big difference here, isn't some grand conspiracy of enslavement, its because for the first time the science is telling a public drunk on cheap oil that they have to get off their butts and change their lifestyles…and people are lazy, they don't want to have to do anything…and the'll waste all their energy fighting change rather than doing what needs to be done.
Unfortunately the change is coming, and its as unstoppable as time itself.
July 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Danny,
don't you think that population control is a good thing? i'm not talking about genocide or murder, but more along the lines of birth control. if we don't take care of the problem of future overpopulation ourselves, nature will do it for us; probably in typically brutal fashion.
July 27th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
"Those photos could of been shot in different seasons. One in the summer and one in winter. "
At first I thought you were joking, but then I realised that you weren't. For somebody astute enough to recognise the inherent problems with climate change science, one would have thought you'd at least look at the pictures you were making rash assertions about >>>Notice the dates are included above each photo for our viewing convenience.
"Various blogs are saying these dramatic images are faked, but since they are available through the US Geological Survey , that hardly seems likely. "
Yep – that's because the USGS are in on it!! The same shady government forces that covered up Roswell, pretended to land men on the moon, crashed planes into the twin towers, are covering up the face on Mars, sunk the titanic, installed a black muslim president in the good ol' US of A and who are diligently working towards creating the New World Order by forcing Eugenic population control on all of us are faking climate change photos to fool the masses. Luckily for us, there are astute teenage blogmasters and crusaders for truth (read: conspiracy theorists) out there who can see through this overarching government plot and who can valiantly show us how blind we all have been!
July 27th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Is it normal to have that amount of ice around Barrow Alaska in mid summer?
Don`t we need more than two photographs to compare any change in weather patterns?
You can`t really make any assumptions on these photos even if the dates are correct.
July 27th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
astrofiend, that was one of your most hilarious posts.
July 27th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I am constantly impressed by people's capacity to scale the lofty heights of dumb.
Even if climate change isn't a result of human activity, even in the slightest, why wouldn't we want to clean up this planet? The s**t we breathe in everyday must be mind bogglingly bad for us. Living in a large city has been described as being equivalent to smoking a half-pack of cigarettes each day in some respects. I know a guy that used to be a bike courier in Sydney – a small city in the scheme of things. He quit because he was starting to cough up black goo on a regular basis. He didn't smoke, but may as well have. Of course the shite that we pump into the air is carcinogenic. Is it any wonder that cancer incidences of almost every type, worldwide, is skyrocketing? We treat this planet like a sewer. So why wouldn't we try to source power from a cleaner alternative? And then you get some halfwit come along and say something like "yeah , but you don't KNOW that climate change is caused by humans!" Way to miss the whole point, moron. Off you toddle to vote for Palin in 2012.
July 27th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
"Pvt.Pantzov Says:
July 27th, 2009 at 9:51 pm "
I try! (usually I fail though)…
July 28th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Not to feed the troll (which is, as usual, cold on science) but the evidence provided here is that the conspiracy is in the other direction. _The US government at the time classified photos illustrating climate changes_, because they were threatening to their policy of science denial.
[Since it was known actions, there were no secret conspiracy of conspirationists of course - just a wrongful one.]
I'm not sure any natural populations follows Malthus' models. FWIW, we _are_ taking care of the problem by way of successful exploitation and increasing efficiency regarding natural resources – as populations have become richer and educated, the incentive for large families have naturally decreased. IIRC UN puts the population peak, just above 9 G individuals, at ~ 2050.
I just read that the increased efficiency in farming is projected to continue at least a decade. It was held up by lack of acceptance for modern methods from research, but now these cultures (mostly EU) have finally started to accept GM agriculture more. Good thing to, as it will mean less pesticides I believe, plants now have natural immunity instead.
We don't _have to_ exactly, and even if we did the AGW will at least contribute to ~ 2 Celsius warming as opposed to current ~ 0.8. But we have done it before, averted the ozone hole climate change by changing methods, and we will probably change some more.
And we will likely do it while having reasonable oil prizes, as the oil production is projected to last at least ~ 30 years under the usually applied models of markets. [Um, reference, some independent oil market institute or other. No time to find it today.]
July 28th, 2009 at 2:27 am
This went missing: That increase in efficiency [of farming] is claimed to increase the current (positive) food supply even more, as it will overcome the population increase.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:50 am
As usual, I just ask:
Shall we risk it?
@ Astrofriend:
Really great posts
July 28th, 2009 at 3:09 am
"the science is telling a public drunk on cheap oil that they have to get off their butts and change their lifestyles "
mmm they may be saying that to make people feel guilty but in practice business is still running as usual. Kinda like the finance system… Who got the public drunk on cheap oil and credit in the first place?
The very same buffoons who are now patronizing the population about their lack of monetary and ecological responsability.
Torbjorn, did you know that GM soja crops have recently started "hybridizing" with a wild plant , amaranth, meaning that now farmers need to use twice as much pesticides which are killing bacterial life in the soil preventing in some places (argentina notably) decomposition of dead organic matter thus forcing farmers to buy even more fertilizers.
I'm not anti-GM for research and medicine, i just think food-wise it isn't the solution, espcially in the hands of market interest-driven corporations.
Watch the documentary "The world according to Monsanto"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_OJcPKEYDE
We can all be pro-science and research but one can't mess around with food production and safety, especially in poor countries where agriculture is fundamental.
GM is not needed unless we go beyond 10 billion people.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:27 am
of course these images has not been faked. most scientist agree that a global warming is taking place and it seems very probable that it to some extent is due to our modern way of living. that said, i think the problem is the way that these two pictures (barrow alaska) were presented in the media as some kind of proof of global warming. I mean, why not also include pictures from 2008 and 2009? where are these pictures, if there are any? has anyone got a link? that would be highly appreciated.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:37 am
One of many things that I find highly amusing is the simple fact that IIRC originaly the scientests wanted to include a suicide gene, so that any hybrids would be infertile to prevent crossbreeding, and the sorts of problems that have been aluded to, however the activists cried "No! You can't do that! You're forcing the poor third world farmers to be dependent on you and by new seed every year".
So the scientests did what the activist wanted, and what the scientests warned would happen has happened, and who's fault is it?
You guessed it.
The scientests.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:55 am
It doesn't matter what's causing it, the ice pack is receding.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Humm…
Earlier this year I had over a foot of snow outside my house. The year before it was hot and sunny.
Does this mean that in my area of England we are in fact experiencing Global Cooling?
I'm afraid this does not represent science to me.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Vedic, we are talking about large sheets of ice that have been there for a long time, not localized weather. We had hail stones fall yesterday while it was about 77 degrees F. That's niether hear, nor there.
Danny, get a grip!
Astrofiend, funny post! I want to comment on one thing though:
"The same shady government forces that covered up Roswell"
If you look at the FACTS, something happened at Roswell that was indeed covered up. On Tuesday, July 8, the Roswell Army Air Field issued the following OFFICIAL press release:
"The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff's office of Chaves County. The flying object landed on a ranch near Roswell sometime last week. Not having phone facilities, the rancher stored the disc until such time as he was able to contact the sheriff's office, who in turn notified Maj. Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office. Action was immediately taken and the disc was picked up at the rancher's home. It was inspected at the Roswell Army Air Field and subsequently loaned by Major Marcel to higher headquarters."
So why on Earth would they release such a statement. They later retracted it of course. if this was to cover up the Mogul project, it didn't work, since that was their later story.
We will likely never know what happened there, but the fact is they reported a crashed flying disk.
July 28th, 2009 at 6:04 am
I think deforestation and over-development is just as, if not more important than human-related CO2 output, as there is less plant material to absorb CO2.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:29 am
That's a good point Dark Gnat. It's not one thing we are doing, it's a lot of things. We are not living in harmony with nature. We exploit the resources, we move plant and animals to parts they don't belong, and we just muck about with things we don't know enough about.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Interesting that selected dates are shown and not a progression. Perhaps we should be treated to the August 1976 images and compare 'em to the July 1990 images. It'd be just as meaningful. Of course the progression of global warming is so slow that it wouldn't be noticed over a time span less then 100 years. Rave on Human Global Warming enthusiasts. 0.03% of ANY greenhouse gas cannot possibly affect global climate. Do the physics.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:12 am
It all comes down to energy.
Hope fusion energy becomes viable soon. That's definitely the next Copernican-esque revolution (in a way).
July 28th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Danny – thanks for the "…sue Al Gore" link. Very informative. I'd like nothing better then a meaningful public debate on Human Global Warming, but it's apparent it will never occur. Coleman explained why in your link. Thanks again.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:00 am
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817,
Climate changes, no doubt. What's the reason for the lack of arctic sea ice in 1817? Certainly not man-made CO2.
In 1817 the Earth was warming after a previous, much cooler epoch,
The Vikings documented extremes in arctic sea ice. They were able to colonize Greenland and Newfoundland as well as sail freely around the arctic sea during a warm period, yet their colonies collapsed during the proceeding cool period.
Wind and ocean currents have more of an effect on arctic sea ice than does temperature. It's a dynamic, ever changing region, not simply a static ice sheet. The total volume of sea ice may not decrease nearly as much as the area it covers, due to compaction by wind and currents. Therefore, arctic sea ice extent does not give a truly accurate description of the total volume.
Those satellite images do not cover enough of a time period to provide any useful datasets. Their primary purpose is further promotion of alarmism, although the effects of ocean currents, wind and compaction may be evident, they will be ignored and the public kept in the dark.
The Wilkins ice shelf in the Antarctic is in a similar situation. It comes and goes cyclically. When ocean currents in the area are calm, the ice sheet can form and last until the currents shift and break it up again.
The problem is not CO2. Plants are healthier with some extra CO2. Civilizations throughout history thrived during warm epochs, yet struggled or collapsed during the cold epochs.
The problem is the gross toxification of our entire environment; air, water, land…GMO's wreaking havoc on agriculture.
Focusing on CO2 is just a distraction from the real problems, while providing yet another excuse to shift even more wealth from the bottom to the top.
There are thousands of highly toxic substances that humans continuously dump into the environment, CO2 aint one of 'em.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:01 am
The pictures are not fake, but should not be used as a case of global warming because the foto in 2006 was during a special event.
See for the FULL explanation :
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2009/07/26/uk-guardian-reproduces-fake-barrow-alaska-pic-as-proof-of-global-warming/
July 28th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Elroy,
"Civilizations throughout history thrived during warm epochs"
You obviously haven't talked to the Anasazi, the inhabitants of the Sahel, the Taklamakan, the Gobi, etc. Not to mention all the ancient cities that died and were buried under the desert sands…a rather real, and common phenomenon that you are surely aware of.
"There are thousands of highly toxic substances that humans continuously dump into the environment, CO2 aint one of 'em."
If you were sealed in a room, your own breath (CO2) will eventually kill you.
"Focusing on CO2 is just a distraction from the real problems, while providing yet another excuse to shift even more wealth from the bottom to the top."
Its a known fact that regardless of where you live on Earth, the richer you are the more CO2 you produce. So if we tax CO2 production, its going to affect more than the poor.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
gwhitton,
Desertification is not necessarily caused by fluctuating global temperatures, although it might be a factor at times. Shifting global moisture distribution is the primary factor which can occur during both warm and cool periods. The Arctic itself is technically classified as a desert!
Deforestation has been a factor in past desertification as well.
While it's true that CO2 in high enough concentrations is harmful starting ~2000 ppm and becomes fatal ~10,000 ppm, plants thrive ~1000 ppm. Too much of anything, including water, sunlight and food (basics for survival) can be harmful.
Being sealed in a room will not only increase CO2 concentrations, it also increases CO and reduces oxygen. You'd succumb to the CO first.
I'm not sure that there is a significant difference in the CO2 production between rich and poor. I think a number of factors are not considered regarding the less affluent. One being their ability to afford energy efficient products and having the knowledge to make informed choices. I think a low income consumer buying tons of cheap junk from Wally World has a huge impact on increased CO2, and pollution overall, due to manufacturing processes and shipping. Think a couple of billion people cooking with inefficient open fires doesn't have an effect? Those are just a couple of examples among many. I don't think the gap is nearly as wide as it may seem.
Taxing CO2, well taxes in general, hurt the poor way more than the affluent, guaranteed…the history of taxation proves it.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
It's funny that someone should say "Do the physics" as if this somehow disproves something.
If you do the physics, then increased absorption of solar radiation is an inevitable consequence of increasing CO2.
If you do the physics, then the only reason we can exist on this little ball of rock is because of that ineffectual .03% of the atmosphere.
If you do the physics, then with regard to global warming, then the only real questions are 'To what extent' and 'What are the long term effects going to be?'
The greenhouse effect isn't the diseased misbegotten byproduct of the fetid imagination of some liberalist left wing econazi. It's a natural consequence of Simple harmonic motion, and EM fields.
The Greenhouse effect is so straight forward, that it's consequences were realized by Arhenius in the 19th centruy. In spite of that it's been largely ignored for a long list of seeminly valid(at the time) reasons as more precise laboratory experiments have been able to be carried out.
And as far as comments about how last winter was the coldest on record go? Be aware that too much emphasis has been put on the average, when the models predict an increase in the variance of temperatures as well as an increase in the average temperature, put simply, what this means is that as having more record breaking heatwaves more frequently, we're also going to see more record breaking cold snaps, and we may well see them more frequently. What was a 1 in 100 year storm will become a 1 in 2 year storm.
And before anybody accuses me of mindless Al Gore worship, I happen to personally think that Al Gore is an idiot that's possibly done more harm than good with his alarmist propaganda.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
The polar icecaps are due to the recent episode of cooling caused by volcanic eruptions and the ice ages those eruptions triggered and are not a permanent feature of this planet. As such, they will melt as the Earth thaws out from being in that deep freeze condition (irrespective of any human-induced warming). In addition, I should point out that the ocean is likely to rise over 200 meters, so any cities lying below that altitude are going to be inundated.
The only solution for Global Warming is Global Air Conditioning. In other words, even if we stopped adding any CO2 to the atmosphere, the Earth is going to continue heating because it's coming back into thermal equilibrium. If we really want to preserve the polar caps, it's going to take a lot of energy to fight the natural forces which are at work returning the planet to its equilibrium temperature.
See http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/19/eruptions-ice-age.html for more info on this topic.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I've never posted here before, but felt compelled this time. I've been reading this site for years along with comments. Some of the current commenters on this story are unfamiliar to me. Global warming, global cooling? Does one prove or disprove the other? Can you really and truthfully say that the planet and the human species is not in trouble? Where I live, we are expereiencing extreme heat. This area in California has a combined population of 1 million people. For the past few weeks we have suffered because of heat ranging from 106-113 degrees. We are familiar with hot summers. Generally temperatures range between 95-103. This extreme heat was visited upon us last summer as well. Prior to that, the temperatures may include 1 day of really high heat such as 104 or 105 every few years. I don't deny that temperature is variable throughout the ages and that all manner of earth phenomena can be cyclic. But these climactic occurances, such as great ice sheets disappearing have been observed, not merely predicted or guessed. Go ahead, find a place to hide, perhaps a newly found sand dune in which to bury your head. Whatever is happening will continue to happen around you whether you believe it or not.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Sorry about the typos, I guess I was expecting an edit function to kick-in before posting.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
"The greenhouse effect isn't the diseased misbegotten byproduct of the fetid imagination of some liberalist left wing econazi. It's a natural consequence of Simple harmonic motion, and EM fields."
What??!!! Oh but of course, forgive me. Pumping billions of tons of crap in the air for centuries…chemicals that just happen to trap heat when high up in the atmosphere, can't possibly do a thing to affect the climate, but harmonics, EM, sunspots, and santa clause are all perfectly plausible answers.
News for are volcano friends. Volcanoes pump 1/150th of the global warming/cooling chemicals that we do on an annual basis.
Funny how we people desperate cling to the studies of crackpots, but dismiss out of hand the research of 10,000's of climate scientists. Goes back once again to that desperation of not wanting to have to change ones lifestyle…not wanting to have to get rid of that big SUV. Yada, yah.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
[blockquote][blockquote]The greenhouse effect isn't the diseased misbegotten byproduct of the fetid imagination of some liberalist left wing econazi. It's a natural consequence of Simple harmonic motion, and EM fields.[/blockquote]
What??!!! Oh but of course, forgive me. Pumping billions of tons of crap in the air for centuries…chemicals that just happen to trap heat when high up in the atmosphere, can't possibly do a thing to affect the climate, but harmonics, EM, sunspots, and santa clause are all perfectly plausible answers.[/blockquote]
Now, take a deep breath, then go back and re-read what I actually had to say, and make an effort to understand it.
Then realize that your righteous indignation and moral outrage at my comments are not only misplaced, but unfounded.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Strange days indeed: the Sahara seems to be receeding, a North-West Passage is on the cards, Antarctica may come out of deep-freeze offering staggering opportunities – and some deadheads are still freaking about taxes. What the rich fear most is someone changing the rules and taking it all away (wasn't that Heinlein?), when with a less pig-eyed perspective it's all good news for the human race. 200m sea level rise? Well the Paeleolithic's inhabitants would probably have voted against it but it happened anyway and look at us now!
Caution: I am not a scientist.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:23 am
gwhitton
Did you not see the comment about the 30,000 scientists (including 9,000 PHD's) that officially question Anthropogenic Climate Change? Are you not aware of the extremely poor siting of climate monitoring instruments worldwide, which skew the raw data?
Have you ever evaluated the, rather poor, methodology or statistical analysis utilized by the global warming fearmongers? Or the "adjustments" they make to historical data?
Or the fact that various ACC fearmongering organizations refuse to disclose their raw datasets or source code for their models? What do they have to hide? The truth?
I changed my lifestyle long ago and it had nothing to do with "global warming" and everything to do with respect for the planet which sustains us. I don't even own a car, I recycle or compost everything that can be disposed of in that manner, I have installed or upgraded numerous photovoltaic, and passive, solar electric and hot water systems. I eat strictly organic foods, most are either grown in my own garden or purchased from local growers. The list goes on.
As a result, my environmental footprint is probably a small fraction of what yours is. One would have to be practically dead to have a smaller "carbon" footprint than I.
Hmmmm, I do all that while knowing that human induced climate change is bogus. The toxic soup of an environment we've created is all too real…that's my motivation.
Whoever said that the only reason the Earth has a habitable climate is because of CO2, is grossly misinformed, purposefully misleading, or just plain ignorant.
The IR absorption of CO2 only occurs in two very narrow bands within the entire IR spectrum. CO2 does not form any sort of "blanket" layer in the atmosphere. CO2 is NOT a "greenhouse" gas. Water vapor is what traps heat in the atmosphere. Water vapor is why the Earth has an environment capable of supporting a wide diversity of life. CO2 is basically plant food.
The atmosphere on Mars is over 95% CO2, yet there is no "greenhouse" effect. Equatorial summer night-time temperatures drop into the -65C range, opposed to daytime highs of around +25C, as I recall. Actually, summertime highs around the equatorial regions would be quite comfortable, but the atmosphere just doesn't hold the heat so it gets cold as hell at night, even though the atmosphere is mostly CO2. During the most recent solar maximum, all of the planets we've been monitoring got warmer during that time. We should be seeing a marked cooling trend soon, throughout the solar system, in the wake of this extreme solar minimum. What are the AGW scaremongers gonna say once that information comes out?
Where do they monitor global CO2 concentrations? One location…Mauna Loa Observatory on the Big Island…Hawaii. How accurate do you think that data is going to be, relative to actual global concentrations, when the monitoring station is located in the vicinity of an active volcano. DUH! Who came up with that? Dumb and Dumbest? Someone with an agenda?
Treating a substance, that is essential to life on Earth, as a pollutant is just plain stupid.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:34 am
99% of the creatures on earth are Extinct. It's really fortunate that we are experiencing global warming rather than global cooling. The Human Race would be screwed if we were to kick into another Ice Age. What we need to do is cut the umbilical cord with the planet or we will go extinct ourselves, through our own actions or through natural occurrence we can't just hang around waiting to see what happens next.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Some very interesting photos! AND some interesting comments.
Its hard for me to believe that in this day of instant telecommunications with a worldwide reach at our fingertips that there are still those among us who deny human activity has contributed to GLOBAL WARMING???
It seems pretty obvious that many within that faction who claim 'global warming' is a myth, are among those who stand to loose financially from the implications of doing something about it!
Tay, a partial list: Automobile manufacturers, the Oil industry, plastics manufacturers, coal burning industries including power utilities, Airlines (With high altitude pollution HIGH on the list of weather/climate changing activities)…. ALL of these industries are guilty of assaulting the Earth, and those who stand to profit from these industries have it in their best interests to continue with that destruction for their short term profit(s).
Its obvious… all too obvious what's going on. Status Quo
July 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Is the need for greed genetic? or just simple stupidity?
July 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Right, two very narrow bands that just happen to occur in the part of the IR that's near where the earths thermal radiation peaks.
And nobody said that earths habitability was solely due to CO2.
Speaking of ignorant, uninformed, or lying.
Mars has 1% of the atmospheric pressure of earth, and recieves 43% of the insolation that earth does, so of course it's going to be colder, and the maximum temperature on Mars is -5°C, not 25°C.
Apparently you're unaware that the strength of the IR absorption of a gas is proportional to the partial pressure of that gas, which, IIRC includes the ambient pressure, so low pressure = low IR absorption.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Yeah, the atmospheric pressure is much lower, but it's still 95% CO2, whereas on Earth CO2 is ~0.03% .
Confirm the following here.
So I was a bit off, a whole 2C, on max. temp. Summertime equatorial low is pretty accurate like that as well, although that's not listed on the above linked ESA site.
Ignorant, uninformed or lying…me? LOL. Good one.
Many scientists, especially those directly involved in climate studies, are now questioning the extent to which climate is affected by human activity, which actually appears to be negligible.
Solar output, PDO and ENSO are primary factors in climate, among other climate cycles not related at all to CO2.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Hmmm. Here's that link:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEM52E5V9ED_0.html
July 29th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Global Warming predicts a severe increase in storm intensity, especially tropical cyclones. Just more alarmism.
Here's the reality:
Northern Hemisphere ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) is the lowest it's been in over 30 years while Global ACE is near to 50 year lows.
Beyond that, historically as well as recently, there is no distinct trend showing a steady increase in ACE. If anything there is a slight decrease in the trend.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Yet we will continue to hear how terribly strong and horrible hurricanes and cyclones will become due to global warming.
If solar activity continues to remain flatlined ( as I believe it will), prepare for some very chilly times ahead. A scientist at NASA said that another Dalton Minimum is not out of the question. The Earth was pretty freakin' chilly during the Dalton Minimum.
OK, not trying to sound alarmist in the other extreme, but the fact is that cold times on Earth have historically been really bad times for civilization. On the other hand, civilization expanded and thrived during warmer periods. So which extreme should be be worried about? I say that past history speaks for itself.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
darn typo's
…should WE be worried about?
not be be worried…
Is there an editor up in this here hizzaus?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I just noticed.
Comparing the two photos at the top of the article, there appears to be snow on the ground in '07, while off-shore is clear of ice. If that is actually true, then that would tend to support the fact that ocean currents and wind are primary factors in Arctic sea ice extent, with temperature having a relatively minor effect.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Once again, when considering these things it's the partial pressure that's important, even though the martian atmospher may be 95% CO2 the partial pressure of CO2 on Mars, IIRC is lower than it is here on earth, and as I have said, it's the partial pressure that's important.
Confirm the following here.
So I was a bit off, a whole 2C, on max. temp. Summertime equatorial low is pretty accurate like that as well, although that's not listed on the above linked ESA site.
So I used a different source that had different information. Oops.
NASA, Mars Facts and Figures
solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Mars&Display=Facts&System=Metric
You get what you give.
I haven't said it here in this thread, but I have said it elsewhere that the most accurate models take all of these things into account.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:34 am
I agree with danny, photos look shopped.. or winter/ summer type. Population control is just one thing on the list debt is another, odd how we go in circles isn't it? Point n ill go in that direction… seems like more n more people believe ignorance is bliss, i dont understand… don't listen to the words listen to the theory..
July 30th, 2009 at 4:41 am
then agian its a good balance between co2 and oxygen, too much co2 n we over heat. not enough n we freeze its all about balance.. change is happening wether its "global warming" or just a natural change in the earth it can't hurt to understand how to balance it out
July 30th, 2009 at 7:12 am
ElroyJetson,
What scientific fields are these 30K scientists in? You didn't say 30K climatologists, I assume the vast majority of them are not studying the climate.