6 ms·

Cold War-Era Spy Satellite Images Reveal Possible Effects of Climate Change

71 points by privong 10y ago

jbmorgado 10y ago
I totally regard global warming and that it is caused by man as true from evidence presented by scientific research. But trying to give single images as proof is actually a disservice to the all thing. It just helps science deniers to actually nitpick their way out of this. EDIT: Grammar in single images.
- mikeash 10y ago
  How is this "give a single image as proof"? It's not a single image, nor is it given as proof. The study involved lots of images tracking nearly a dozen different sites, and the changes observed are attributed to climate change (and even then only with the caveat of "possibly and likely"), not presented as proof of climate change.
  - jbmorgado 10y ago
    Sorry, I was directly translating from my language to english and it could mean a different thing in english. I mean that in the way as giving just an image (as in no other data like temperatures, CO2 levels, etc), makes it easier for science deniers to nitpick out of it.
    - jbclements 10y ago
      You're right that the image is just one source of data. But... that's true of any one source of data. This data doesn't prove anything, it just contributes a bit more evidence (to an already enormous pile...).
    - mirimir 10y ago
      It's not "an image". I gather that they've analyzed many images, and are extracting information about vegetation from them. The result is data.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  It's really hard to see how it matters at this point. Just as the debate is really getting started we've ensured another 4+ years of not only stasis, but reversal. This, when we already have permafrost melting and releasing methane, and a system with 20+ year delays on inputs. The deniers have "won" in a broadly suicidal sense, barring some kind of technological or literal miracle.
  - woogiewonka 10y ago
    Makes me sad to think about it.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    There's always the unlikely but nonetheless possible political miracle, where people deem the system of governance to be failing and set about changing it. Admittedly the predictable conflicts that would result would themselves come with a significant environmental bill, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
  - thinkmilitant 10y ago
    Take heart, the world is larger than America and much of the good we've already done will continue to ripple forward. Adopting the attitude that we've already lost gives a sense of closure to a topic that still requires effort and attention.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      For sure, "never say die" is great advice, and all. But arguably, it really is too late, to avoid major disruptions for human civilization. So hey, now we can all agree that anthropogenic warming is happening. And dispute about how bad it will be. What we'll find, I suspect, is that exponentials are full of surprises.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      I find it impossible to muster even a false sense of hope at this stage, and frankly if enthusiasm solved problems they'd all be solved. Throw some realistic hope my way that doesn't include, "First human nature needs to change" or something like that though, and I'll be there. I'm bad at faith, but I'm willing to pin hopes on analytically sound long shots, if they're all I have.
unit91 10y ago
TL;DR: A couple dudes at UVA want grant money after looking at a some pictures from 1966. “We’re starting to find a browning of the tundra in the last few years,” [Epstein] said. “The progression of growth may be reversing. We’re not sure yet why, but it’s clear that vegetation dynamics are more complex across tundra than previously thought. We still have a lot of work to do to understand Arctic changes and how this affects and is affected by changes to the global climate.” Also, there's this strange statement: As the shrubbery increases its distribution, it creates its own warming effect by absorbing heat, rather than reflecting heat as snow does, leading to additional warming and perpetuating the effect. What am I supposed to take away from this? Start a campaign for tundra deforestation? That can't be right. It must be that more research is needed. ETA: Well, from the replies, it looks like I communicated my point poorly. I wasn't arguing the merits of the case for (or against) AGW, rather I was saying these researchers are really stretching it, it my opinion. They don't have much more (at least as reported here) than "look, these pictures show very different vegetation patterns", and from there we (they) need more research (dollars). I think this is just an academic form of a submarine article: VERY preliminary speculation reported as news by a university with a vested interest in securing funding.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  > What am I supposed to take away from this? - New historical satellite imagery is available - The general trend in Siberian tundra has been greening - Not monotonically
- Thrymr 10y ago
  > Start a campaign for tundra deforestation? That can't be right. They are not talking about deforestation, but growth on previously barren ground: "We now know that a lot of greening has been going on there, too, with tall shrubs and woody vegetation. The vegetation has been getting both taller and expanding in space and range."
- Arnt 10y ago
  Deforestation wouldn't help, you'd need something reflecting, like snow. Like long winters and short summers.
frogpelt 10y ago
Is a warmer planet a bad planet? Increased vegetation is good right? Sure, it's bad for coastal cities but those are man-made intrusions upon nature.
- Silfen 10y ago
  It's bad when modern society depends on the integrity of the biosphere.
- shirakawasuna 10y ago
  The majority of the population lives near the coast, and this percentage is increasing. Those people (billions of them) will either be displaced, resulting in a huge humanitarian crisis, or spend enormous amounts of money and effort to create dykes and levies. Remember Hurricane Katrina's effect on New Orleans? If the world went the latter direction, such disasters would be a risk for every coastal city. And climate change will likely involve more frequent and intense storms...
- wavefunction 10y ago
  The problem is when it warms as fast as it has.
- tejtm 10y ago
  Absolutely, yes it is great for planet wide life and overall diversification, typically at the expense of the incumbents.
- jkn 10y ago
  If you consider Nature in general, nothing is good or bad. Colder is better for organisms that prefer cold, warmer for those that prefer warm. No life at all might be best for the geological (or should I say areological) wonders on Mars. Ethically speaking, I think most climate change "alarmists" (what is the equivalent word with positive connotation?) are either worried for the species that will go extinct, or the poorer humans that will suffer the most from it.
  - whytaka 10y ago
nonbel 10y ago
Isn't this directly measuring "climate change" rather than "effects of climate change"?

71 points by privong 10y ago

I totally regard global warming and that it is caused by man as true from evidence presented by scientific research. But trying to give single images as proof is actually a disservice to the all thing. It just helps science deniers to actually nitpick their way out of this. EDIT: Grammar in single images.

mikeash 10y ago
How is this "give a single image as proof"? It's not a single image, nor is it given as proof. The study involved lots of images tracking nearly a dozen different sites, and the changes observed are attributed to climate change (and even then only with the caveat of "possibly and likely"), not presented as proof of climate change.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  Sorry, I was directly translating from my language to english and it could mean a different thing in english. I mean that in the way as giving just an image (as in no other data like temperatures, CO2 levels, etc), makes it easier for science deniers to nitpick out of it.
  - jbclements 10y ago
    You're right that the image is just one source of data. But... that's true of any one source of data. This data doesn't prove anything, it just contributes a bit more evidence (to an already enormous pile...).
  - mirimir 10y ago
    It's not "an image". I gather that they've analyzed many images, and are extracting information about vegetation from them. The result is data.
M_Grey 10y ago
It's really hard to see how it matters at this point. Just as the debate is really getting started we've ensured another 4+ years of not only stasis, but reversal. This, when we already have permafrost melting and releasing methane, and a system with 20+ year delays on inputs. The deniers have "won" in a broadly suicidal sense, barring some kind of technological or literal miracle.
- woogiewonka 10y ago
  Makes me sad to think about it.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  There's always the unlikely but nonetheless possible political miracle, where people deem the system of governance to be failing and set about changing it. Admittedly the predictable conflicts that would result would themselves come with a significant environmental bill, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
- thinkmilitant 10y ago
  Take heart, the world is larger than America and much of the good we've already done will continue to ripple forward. Adopting the attitude that we've already lost gives a sense of closure to a topic that still requires effort and attention.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    For sure, "never say die" is great advice, and all. But arguably, it really is too late, to avoid major disruptions for human civilization. So hey, now we can all agree that anthropogenic warming is happening. And dispute about how bad it will be. What we'll find, I suspect, is that exponentials are full of surprises.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I find it impossible to muster even a false sense of hope at this stage, and frankly if enthusiasm solved problems they'd all be solved. Throw some realistic hope my way that doesn't include, "First human nature needs to change" or something like that though, and I'll be there. I'm bad at faith, but I'm willing to pin hopes on analytically sound long shots, if they're all I have.

unit91 10y ago

TL;DR: A couple dudes at UVA want grant money after looking at a some pictures from 1966. “We’re starting to find a browning of the tundra in the last few years,” [Epstein] said. “The progression of growth may be reversing. We’re not sure yet why, but it’s clear that vegetation dynamics are more complex across tundra than previously thought. We still have a lot of work to do to understand Arctic changes and how this affects and is affected by changes to the global climate.” Also, there's this strange statement: As the shrubbery increases its distribution, it creates its own warming effect by absorbing heat, rather than reflecting heat as snow does, leading to additional warming and perpetuating the effect. What am I supposed to take away from this? Start a campaign for tundra deforestation? That can't be right. It must be that more research is needed. ETA: Well, from the replies, it looks like I communicated my point poorly. I wasn't arguing the merits of the case for (or against) AGW, rather I was saying these researchers are really stretching it, it my opinion. They don't have much more (at least as reported here) than "look, these pictures show very different vegetation patterns", and from there we (they) need more research (dollars). I think this is just an academic form of a submarine article: VERY preliminary speculation reported as news by a university with a vested interest in securing funding.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
> What am I supposed to take away from this? - New historical satellite imagery is available - The general trend in Siberian tundra has been greening - Not monotonically
Thrymr 10y ago
> Start a campaign for tundra deforestation? That can't be right. They are not talking about deforestation, but growth on previously barren ground: "We now know that a lot of greening has been going on there, too, with tall shrubs and woody vegetation. The vegetation has been getting both taller and expanding in space and range."
Arnt 10y ago
Deforestation wouldn't help, you'd need something reflecting, like snow. Like long winters and short summers.

frogpelt 10y ago

Is a warmer planet a bad planet? Increased vegetation is good right? Sure, it's bad for coastal cities but those are man-made intrusions upon nature.

Silfen 10y ago
It's bad when modern society depends on the integrity of the biosphere.
shirakawasuna 10y ago
The majority of the population lives near the coast, and this percentage is increasing. Those people (billions of them) will either be displaced, resulting in a huge humanitarian crisis, or spend enormous amounts of money and effort to create dykes and levies. Remember Hurricane Katrina's effect on New Orleans? If the world went the latter direction, such disasters would be a risk for every coastal city. And climate change will likely involve more frequent and intense storms...
wavefunction 10y ago
The problem is when it warms as fast as it has.
tejtm 10y ago
Absolutely, yes it is great for planet wide life and overall diversification, typically at the expense of the incumbents.
jkn 10y ago
If you consider Nature in general, nothing is good or bad. Colder is better for organisms that prefer cold, warmer for those that prefer warm. No life at all might be best for the geological (or should I say areological) wonders on Mars. Ethically speaking, I think most climate change "alarmists" (what is the equivalent word with positive connotation?) are either worried for the species that will go extinct, or the poorer humans that will suffer the most from it.
- whytaka 10y ago

nonbel 10y ago

Isn't this directly measuring "climate change" rather than "effects of climate change"?