Long-lost satellite data reveal new insights to climate change
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.
Long-lost satellite data reveal new insights to climate change | Science/AAAS | News
What a load of BS. The IPCC knew about this data in 1990, and they reported that ice extent was much lower in 1974 than in 1979.
h/t to Peter William Lount
Another crock: http://local.msn.com/warming-gulf-of-maine-imperils-lobster-fish-catch-1
“The shore of a cove off Maine’s Friendship Long Island has long been the best site on the East Coast to find baby lobsters, she said. Around 2007, she couldn’t lift a rock without finding one, and usually found several.
But the rising sea has prevented her from getting there much since 2010, she said, because it’s almost always underwater.”
Um, how much has sea level risen in the 3 years from 2007-2010, or in the 7 years since 2007?
As for this anecdotal article, do they understand the concept of confounding variables, or does that threaten their world view that global warming causes everything and is the dominant explanation for everything?
“Another crock” is right!
Without “real science” they have to use Bad Science. Without actual (“un-adjusted”) observations, they have to use anecdotes. It’s called “climate science”.
ABSOLUTE CROCK
No one would notice a change of a few inches much less a few mm from year to year.
Either she only visited at low tide one year and high tide another and is too STUPID to know about tides or she is lying.
I should also note that the PDO (ocean temp oscillation in the Pacific) was first discovered by fishermen/scientists because the change in water temps changed the fishing.
The Case of the Disappearing Salmon
I am sure the same goes for the Atlantic
it does for the north east atlantic,all the hullabaloo about icelanders and the faroese catching mackerel that are traditionally european stocks was a nonsense. the the slight warming of these waters during the positive phase of the north atlantic oscillation was the cause of the increased distribution of mackerel.
note i said increased distribution ,not a change in distribution for the existing stock mackerel still occupy the accepted traditional areas in the same numbers,but numbers overall have increased dramatically which naturally requires the larger population to expand. this is confirmed by ICES (international council for the exploration of the seas ) recently having to admit to underestimating stocks of mackerel by up to 4 fold.
as sea temperatures drop in a prolonged period of negative NAO the distribution will revert to a more southerly latitude once again.
Never ending crocks of BS from our beloved ministers of propaganda!
The lies are getting more numerous and ridiculous. The Brainstorming sessions are in in overtime to come up with these dumb ass articles. The next story will link the switching of the magnetic field to C02.
I thought the Nimbus satellites were before any data shown in the AR1 report.
IIRC, when they put together the results for 1964 they were surprised it wasn’t higher than the late-70’s values, in contradiction to the historical sea-ice area plot shown by CT.
-Scott
maybe she was wearing high heels the last time…
Very interesting. They also have satellite global brightness temperature from 1964, 1966, 1969 here in addition to ice edge data
http://nsidc.org/data/nimbus/data-sets.html
Beyond my capabilities to extract this data and plot relative to the post 1978 satellite record, but perhaps something stevengoddard is working on already? 🙂
Now they can have a computer program read the films, show what they want shown, then destroy the films because well, it’s in the computer now.
You keep supplying me with ammunition! Many thanks.
Paging JH,
Paging JH,
…the large crock of BS you ordered has just arrived.
Please sign.
😀
ROTFLMAO
+1
Why on earth would they limit the scanning to 4 bit gray-scale resolution? 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.
If those were indeed film images (and many of the earliest satellites dropped film “landers” back to the planet for development), then they should be scanning that film at 8-bit (256 level) gray-scale at a minimum…. No reason not to scan them in at a higher resolution. Disk space is cheap.
Archiving those images via 4-bit gray-scale scanning doesn’t make sense in this day and age.
I suppose it *might be* much easier to “adjust” 4-bit (16 level gray-scale) images…….
It amazes me they “adjust” 4-bit (16 level gray-scale) when 2 bit or even 1 bit is perfectly useful for their needs.
🙂
“Disk space is cheap”
Not in 1964. 4 bits is a tradeoff between resolution and data density.
Watts attached this 1971-1978 Arctic sea ice data to the 1979 – 2012 data and generated the following graph:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/arctic_sea_ice_1971-2012_c2day_and_ipcc.png?w=1182
It will be interesting to add useful NIMBUS data pre-1971 on Arctic sea ice to this series.
Is there a difference in the method of measuring sea ice between NOAA 1971-1979 and “Cryosphere today”?
It’s obvious that polar sea ice fluctuates widely on this scale, which is well within the bounds of “natural variability” tho it looks like instrument sensitivity plays a role too. one thing is obvious, the upper and lower limits of sea ice have not yet been recorded by modern instruments, therefor, anyone with preconceived conclusions in such a timescale are sure to be wrong.. As it happens, climastrologist’s have been wrong with ‘both ways’ since the 70’s about their catastrophe predictions of an ice age nuclear winter scenario, and the man made ‘runaway’ global warming which has recently flopped.
12% increase in Arctic ice from 1965-1975:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QAFJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5oIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1282,407671
and http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/doc/169335148.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Mar%202,%201975&author=&pub=Chicago%20Tribune&edition=&startpage=&desc=B-r-r-r-r:%20New%20Ice%20Age%20on%20way%20soon?
Arctic ice anomaly 1953-1977 (see Figure 5 on p.6/585): http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485(1979)009%3C0580%3AAAOASI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
I notice that the article focuses on the Antarctic and the researchers point out the record lows of ice there. Just don’t mention the warArctic.
WHAT record lows?
You have active volcanoes melting some of the ice on shore and record breaking levels of sea Ice several times this year. link
Not to mention record breaking low temperatures….