Thanks for the explanation re security Larry.

Some other Arctic pictures I’ve seen gave me the impession that polar bears had a habit of balancing on ice spikes, bit like an audition for the circus. :-)

“I think it’s the shadow cast by some clouds, if you look at it carefully.”

It’s neither, the arctic is just happy to see you!

Seriously, Arctic ice being declassified is absurd (not that some of the pictures should not be classified if showing military hardware).

Alexej Buergin (08:01:28) :

“If you calculate the boiling point of water at altitude, then the calculation is based upon models (boiling point vs air pressure, air pressure vs altitude).”

The difference is that these calculations are directly measurable to confirm the accuracy of of the equations (model). No assumptions are needed. They have been tested and verified. Climate models are loaded with assumptions (free parameters) that are not measurable or testable. One mathematical phycisist claimed that given enough free parameters, he can model an elephant that can fly.

Climate science has created a CO2 that does more than many of us think is possible. Since the models assumptions are not all measurable or testable, there is no proof of this super CO2, and unfortunately only time will offer the disproof needed to debunk this once and for all, but by then the damage of carbon cap and trade/carbon tax may be done.

Sunfighter (12:04:57) :

Why was this stuff classified in the first place? secret ice?

Classified resource used to gather the info.

Simply divulging the maximum resolution of the photograph taken, would seriously impact the satellite surveillance operations as it would tell a knowledgeable adversary the limits of our technology, and more importantly might tip them off to a means to spoof the satellites or blind them.

Since it is a classified means of data collection, everything that comes off that system is by default classified data unless it is specifically reviewed and released or down graded to a lower classification.

Release of that sort of data would likely involve down sampling the original images to the 1 meter resolution mentioned to obscure the technological capabilities of the satellites.

That said, a competent observer can get a very good idea of the limiting resolution of the satellite by applying well known physical principles such as the diffraction limit and objective size of the camera and the Dawes’ limit for a perfect lens of that size and altitude.

http://www.telescope-optics.net/telescope_resolution.htm

That is one of the reasons the major players in satellite intelligence have very high resolution cameras to take pictures of orbital objects.

By taking pictures of the other guys satellite, they can make some good educated guesses regarding the technological limits of the observations it can make.

Even if the other guy can calculate that you can see x resolution, you don’t want to physically confirm that calculation. Releasing the raw images would do that.

That is why they are probably down sampled to the 1 meter resolution even though most open sources estimate their limiting resolution based on the physical laws, is probably under the size of a base ball. The old “able to read a license plate” statement is one of those open source estimates, that is widely debated, and based on the above physical laws of optics is probably not far off the mark, especially with modern computer image enhancement technology.

Larry

“There are a lot of processes that we still don’t have a good handle on,” such as why Arctic ice is melting faster than models predict it should”, says geographer Mark Serreze

Oh that is easy to explain — the model is faulty!

The key point to his statement is he does not acknowledge that little detail explicitly. He states it as if the problem is that they do not understand processes (which is true), but ignores the obvious conclusion of that statement.

When observed reality does not match up with your calculations there is a very good chance it is your calculations that are broken, not the observations.

Larry

Just trying to be funny here.

“Is that a submarine pushing up through the ice in the photo?”

I think it’s the shadow cast by some clouds, if you look at it carefully.

If the sats are so marvelous, why don’t the GW modelers trust sat temp data instead of tarmac-barbeque ground stations on steroids?

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/Arctic-May-Lose-Most-Ice-in-30-Years/story.xhtml?story_id=031001QKYCTA