Earliest satellite photos reveal a few things
Found—some old satellite photos with grainy images:
Scientists have uncovered a cache of satellite images of Earth from the 1960s that had been forgotten in storage for nearly 50 years and that push back the first satellite images of our planet a full 17 years.
They reveal some surprises:
What they found astonished them: The images revealed new records for both the smallest maximum [Antarctic] sea ice ever recorded and the largest. The latter record was just broken this year. The two records were just two years apart, but the difference in sea ice extent was more than 1.5 million square miles (4 million square kilometers), an area twice the size of Mexico.
“We’re talking a 20 percent difference,” says Gallaher. “That’s a sizeable change.”
So many things we don’t understand. Like this:
The Nimbus satellites also caught images of the Arctic before warming from climate change accelerated. Gallaher and Campbell were surprised to see some mysterious holes in the ice in the old images.
Holes in the Arctic ice are a common phenomenon today, as the Arctic warms. But in the colder 1960s, a large patch of thin or melted ice was unexpected””and nothing like it was seen again until the 21st century.
“It’s an intriguing thing, but we haven’t figured out what it is, or verified what it is,” says Campbell. “It looks like open water, but it could be very thin new ice that formed in a break in the old ice.”
Intriguing, indeed.
i have one of the original prints of the first shot of the earth from the moon…
i wonder what its worth?
No doubt the watermelon greenies will use this to revive their failed prophesy of capitalist driven doom.
I have trouble taking seriously anyone who uses the words ‘climate change’. It shows too much adherence to word tricks and advertising rather than science. Remember when it was ‘global warming’?
There are photos from the 60’s of atomic submarines surfaced at the north pole in openings in the ice. I don’t know of the extent of the openings in the recovered pictures, but I doubt the (re)discovery is truly new.
Which way is the climate accelerating, warmer or cooler? Will we freeze or fry? I remember predictions in the 1970s that global cooling was going to cause massive crop failures and by the 1980s there would be widespread famines and millions would die.
There is a famous picture of three nuclear submarines surfacing in open water near the north pole in the 1960’s (same period as the satellite photos in the story). There are newspaper articles from the 1920’s talking about the same thing. There has always been real data showing cyclic changes in the arctic but that was not supportive of the narrative of man made warming (it’s the man made that had to be emphasized, volcanos and sunspots aren’t sexy enough
This should not be any surprise to anyone who values genuine science rather than politicized leftist science. Lefties love to brag about how sophisticated and scientific they are especially when talking about conservative Christians, but in reality lefties are more irrational and less rational than the people they taunt.
There is no question that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The problem is that the leftist alarmists have built in a strong positive feedback into their climate models which is nothing but a fudge factor which has not been established by experimentation.
It is interesting that the weatherman can not predict the weather accurately two weeks in the future and always hedge their predictions with percentage probabilities but they pretend they can predict the weather 100 years from now to an accuracy of 1 degree or better. Of course, by predicting so far into the future, they know no one will care anymore when the actual experimental data (the thing which separates science from voodoo) finally comes in.
Keep the people in a (phony) state of fear with imaginary threats of a new ice age or desertification of the corn belt and then flip 180 and feed them soothing reassurances when confronting real threats like unmanageable debt, jihadists, and deadly diseases. However, I think this tactic may be wearing thin when it comes to ebola, the border crash, and the hysterical claims of AGW. The first Tuesday in November will be interesting.
Ray:
FIRE AND ICE
By Robert Frost
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Those pictures need to disappear into the memory hole. They don’t fit the narrative.
There was a commenter at the National Geographic site that claimed there were older pics of the Aral Sea than this article claimed, but I do not wish to search them out.
Henrik Svensmark’s theory on cosmic rays and clouds explains all SIX billion years of climate change for the planet earth. Read/view the material below and you will be convinced that this is the theory everyone should be supporting.
–The first link is to an hour long movie on Svensmark and his theory.
–The second link is to the book, Chilling Stars he has written.
–The third link is to the blog Watts Up noting that the CERN has confirmed the central thesis of Svensmark that cosmic rays create clouds.
Enjoy.
you tube video on theory
http://tinyurl.com/nb8d5hb
chilling stars book by svensmark
http://tinyurl.com/l2t7ghs
wattsup blog post on cern confirmation of theory
http://tinyurl.com/3b3369x
Harold:
A post I wrote on Svensmark.
Illuminati: Why do you say there is no question that carbon dioxide is a green house gas? This is one source I have read up on. Just running down carbon dioxide itself, from every source one can find, leaves a person with a much different viewpoint on the capabilities of carbon dioxide (especially the percentage we contribute as humans) as a green house gas.
http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2006/06/carbon-dioxide-villain-or-savior.html
This is another opinion, based on science as well.
Long and short, somebody’s lying, if science is science.
Carbon dioxide certainly is a greenhouse gas at concentrations 1000 times higher than its present level in atmosphere, and this effect can be directly measured in experiment. But at concentrations really occuring this effect can not be measured, calculated or otherwise established. The very existence of greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in real atmosphere with convection, precipitation and evaporation is a pure speculation which can not be confirmed or refuted at present state of scientific knowledge.
CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. The more interesting question is its total effect on the earth’s climate. Currently it is at 400ppm, and due to Beer’s law, has already reached about 95% of its effectiveness. The “greenhouse” effect of CO2 is logarithmic, and at 400ppm, doubling CO2 to 800ppm would only result in about another 2% gain. At most, CO2 contributes about 1 oC to the overall global temperature. Don’t give the AGW crowd an opening by saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is, but its effect is very minor.
Water is the primary greenhouse gas. Without water the earth would be about 30 degrees colder. As Illuminati says, what happened is that the climate “scientists” built in a positive feedback loop in their models so that CO2 increases drive more H2O into the atmosphere, thus increasing the global temperature. Those models are now failing at the 97% level when compared to actual data.
I’ve been dealing with this issue not only on my campus, but also as part of a group of scientists, meteorologists, and engineers in my state in a more public way. Don’t make up the science like the other side does; stick to the facts. It’s actually fun to watch an AGW’er when one says things like: “Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And yes, the earth in a general sense has been warming for the pas 100 years”. They sputter as they have labeled you a “denier” which hinges around the above two ideas. Then you can go on to destroy their arguments with historic and current data.
BTW, Svensmark’s ideas are still in the process of evaluation, both with lab experiments at CERN, and observational data. Be skeptical even with those ideas that support your position… it’s the way real science works as opposed to climate “science”.
The sub (USS Skate) at the north pole in 1959 not only had open water, but they were able to come up through open water in March. March is the time of year when ice is at its maximum.
There is no question that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
avtually there is… but who gets to read that? if you turn a infrared camera towards the sky at night, its not hazy… the heat escapes the planet because the “green house” has no glass and is an open system.
a set of harvard scientists did just that, and found that backscatter was not detectable. they were doing work in the desert… and anyone who has lived by the desert or knows about deserts know that they often drop to below freezing at night. if the day dont cook you to death, you will freeze to death in the night.
the temperature in Death Valley can change over 60 degrees in a 24 hour period, though more moderate 50 or so degrees is more common.
note that when clouds are overhead, the temperature drop is much lower, as they hold in the heat like a blanket.
the sahara:Daily variations may also be extreme: a swing from 37.5 to −0.5 °C (100 to 31 °F) has been observed.
if the greenhouse effect was real to the degree the greenies claim, where does the 70 degrees of heat go? the remaining temperature is from the temperature of air below the range of emitting infrared.
infrared telescopes would not work well, they would have to be in space.
but lets have a bit of physics here… why is the sky blue? the sky is blue because longer wavelengths of light are not scattered as easily as shorter wavelengths. this is why sunsets and such are redder, as they go through lots more atmosphere till there is enough to scatter it (not to mention the particulates in the air)
the longer the wavelength, the harder it is to scatter. scattering is the absorption and reimmition of light.
The NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (NASA IRTF) is a 3-meter (9.8 ft) telescope optimized for use in infrared astronomy and located at the Mauna Kea Observatory in Hawai’i.
note that radio would not work as well as it does if long wavelengths were absorbed easily.
shorter red gets through, longer red gets blocked
Ground-based infrared telescopes reside at high altituteds in dry climates in an effort to get above much of the water vapor in the atmosphere that absorbs infrared. However, ground-based infrared observatories must still account for the atmosphere in their measurements. To do this, the infrared emission from the atmosphere is measured at the same time as the measurement of the cosmic object being observed. Then, the emission from the atmosphere can be subtracted to get an accurate measurement of the cosmic object. The telescopes, for both ground-based and space/airborne observatories, are also designed to limit the spurious infrared radiation from reaching the detector, and the detectors are cooled to limit their infrared emissions.
too much greenhouse effect, and the telescopes would have to be in space.
not only that, but the majority of the effect is from water not from CO2… water can hit as high as 4% of the atmosphere… CO2 is .03% CO2 becomes fatal at around 3% (though longer exposure at less can be harmful)
heat in a greenhouse is actually conserved by the glass, because glass does not let infrared pass much. window glass blocks infrared, but allows other wavelengths in. these wavlengths hit objects, and are re-emitted as multiple photons usually of lower energy, and so longer wavelengths. these longer wavelengths get trapped by the glass, and so the greenhouse is hotter.
And let’s not forget that 70% of the planet’s surface is covered by water. That is where the sun’s energy is absorbed. Not in the air. Not so much on land. It is the exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere that determines climate.
Physicsguy Your response to all this was really clear and intriguing …do you have a blog or website with more info about the basics of the stuff you point out? Or a reco for a layperson who wants to learn more about the facts at hand?
Neo-neocon. Good post on AGW’s religious basis and Svensmark.
The main problems with AGW:
–is that it is primarily a religious precept (as is leftism in general);
–that it is something that even its supporters don’t think will kick in for a century (that’s several generations from now);
–and most important of all, even if true, AGW only would explain the last few decades. Svensmark’s theory (and his Israeli collaborator) explains all the warming and cooling, all the ice ages over the history of the planet.
If AGW worshippers want to adopt a theory they need to find one that explains climate changes throughout history.
And oh didn’t the election of the Messiah stop the rising of the seas?
The AGW worshippers are just more useful idiots. The real agenda is to create shortages of everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) so that government can use rationing as yet another tool to reward their fiends and punish their enemies.
A greenhouse works by preventing convection. Infrared has little to do with it. You can make a perfectly good greenhouse out of material that is transparent to IR.
I d like to know how something can be *settled
science* when it is supposed to happen in the
FUTURE !!!!
In addition to computer generated conclusions do
they also employ a *crystal ball or for the less sophisticated among them a *magic 8 ball* !!!
First of all, the term “greenhouse gas” is a poor choice as the atmospheric effect has nothing to do with the actual operation of a greenhouse which works by limiting convection. But, we are stuck with it.
NYer: no, I don’t have such a blog. I would suggest reading wattsupwiththat.com on a daily basis. Anthony has at the top of the page a reference section for all the relevant data. A treasure trove of factual material. Dr. Roy Spencer is another valuable resource http://www.drroyspencer.com/
This discovery really makes me feel old; Archaeology has always been one of my favorite subjects, but gosh, the 1960’s weren’t THAT long ago. Were they?
Ray A greenhouse works by preventing convection. Infrared has little to do with it. You can make a perfectly good greenhouse out of material that is transparent to IR.
no.. this is not right… if you dont want to start growing earlier in the season, then i guess you can forgoe the IR blocking which makes it warmer which makes for an extended growing season.
but even if the air was still, the temperature would even out. see the laws of thermodynamics. (and note that they are not even correct as they are actual special laws, not general laws – so they have caveats. Sci Amer did a great article on this part of them)
the only way to prevent convection is to have even temperature. where the temps are not even, you get convection… as warmer air is thinner than colder air, and we live in a gravity field. though i guess in space, you can avoid convection as well being in microgravity.
now that is referring to boyant convection, but diffusion is also convection… and there is no way to stop this process in the circumstances of a green house.
same is true of our atmosphere as a whole, convection moves air from the surface, to higher areas till it pushes the heat out to space, and then cools and drops again. such convective events are waht powers hurricanes, tornadoes, updrafts that can cause a plane ride to become a roller coaster, etc.
Introduction to Greenhouse Glazing
http://ag.arizona.edu/ceac/sites/ag.arizona.edu.ceac/files/Glazing%20Ball%20Red%20Book%20Chris%20Beytes.pdf
Solar e
nergy can be transmitted, reflected or absorbed by the greenhouse covering. The transmitted
portion of the visible (PAR) light is needed for plant growth, but only a small fraction (1
–
5%) is
actually utilized by the plant. The unused PAR (and the remainder of the solar radiation other than
PAR) is absorbed by the plant and the greenhouse internal components (soil, concrete) and structure.
The absorbed energy, warms the components, and they reemit the energy as infrared (IR) heat, and
warm the greenhouse air. This “greenhouse heating effect” is the welcome result of radiation transmission into a closed space, and the prevention of some of the heat from leaving through the cover
of the space
The more insulated the cover of the greenhouse, the lower ra
te of heat lost, and thus the easier to
maintain air temperature in the cool season. The insulating ability of transparent coverings is primarily
dependent on whether it is a single or double
–
layer. This obviously is a very important consideration
when s
electing a glazing where supplemental heating is required. If the cover is constructed of two
layers (for example, double
–
layer, air
–
inflated PE, or structured two
–
layer rigid PC), then it can insulateagainst heat loss better than a single layer (for example glass, or PC). Always select a double-layermaterial over a single-layer for greater heat energy savings. Double-layer covers will require less solar energy in the day, and fossil fuel energy at night, to maintain the inside air temperature, than will singlelayer covers during the cool season.
However, the night heating costs can be further reduced if the cover has an additive that acts as an
infrared heat barrier (low transmission of infrared radiation). Glass has traditionally had an excellent
barrier to infrared transmission, but the plastic film covers (such as PE) may not. The IR barrier
improves the “greenhouse heating effect” by trapping the IR radiation so that it can be absorbed within
the greenhouse for warming the air, instead of pass
ing through the glazing to the outdoor environment
“and they reemit the energy as infrared (IR) heat”
Anytime I see a statement like that I suspect they don’t know basic physics. Infrared is electromagnetic radiation, not heat (thermal energy), and when an IR photon is absorbed by something it ceases to exist and cannot be reemitted. In the intro to physics course I had in college we studied elementary mechanics, light, heat and sound and this was all explained.
” Infrared is electromagnetic radiation, not heat (thermal energy),” Well, sort of. “heat” is defined as energy that can change the total internal energy of a system via the energy conservation law: dU= dQ + dW, where U is the internal energy, Q is the “heat”, and W is work. “heat” (I really dislike the term as it causes so much confusion) can be transferred into or out of the system by 3 primary means: conduction (this is due mainly through transfer of molecular kinetic energy via collisions, etc), convection (transfer of energy via fluid motion), and radiation. Radiation, ie photons thus can be in some sense “heat”.
” when an IR photon is absorbed by something it ceases to exist and cannot be reemitted” Not really. When a photon is absorbed by say CO2, the molecule can return from the excited state by emitting a photon of exactly the same energy that was absorbed. Is it the same photon that went in? Since we can’t label photons, the question really is moot.
So, at the end of the day, what are we left with?
It is my view that man made global warming is basically, horseshit, as far as its effect on climate.
When compared against the benefits of modern living…………….
Pingback:More proof leftism is a false religion | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics