High Park Fire, days 1 and 2 (VERY PIC HEAVY)

Thanks for the continued updates John:).

Our one evening 'flash flood' amounted to absolutely nothing. Once it dried out, even the kiln didn't need a fuse (this made me scratch my head a bit, as the breaker didn't even get tripped). Our total attrition was 2 wet MFRB bottoms.

I am reading about the colorado fires and it is STILL going... that is completely mind-boggling... www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us/colorado-fires/index.html

Good to hear that no one here is in the thick of it!!

This morning, as my husband was heading out for work, he looked over my shoulder at a FB photo I had posted of the earth in 2012 from satellite ( npp.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/index.html ):

- crap... the res is way too high to link the image... please see the NASA site:
npp.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/feature2012-bluemarble.html

vs the earth shot by the GEOS satellite in 1986:
abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec09.html

From 1986 to 2012, the North American continent over 25 years turned from green to brown visibly (yes, I know, I know, climate change is a myth).

His comment... "well you know, every day we pump 6 billion gallons of oil out of the ground from little holes... what do you think happens with those holes? They fill with water. That takes the water out of the atmosphere, so it doesn't produce rain. In the not distant future, the whole earth will become a desert. That's probably why the sea's rising, because less water can evaporate to become rain, 6 billion gallons a day of water is flowing underground to displace the holes left from pumping oil out", then kisses me and goes off to work.

It made me think of your fires.

Little Bear Fire, Ruidoso, New Mexico, time-lapse video

Think about it for a minute, Helen. The “pic” was taken on January 23rd, and there isn’t so much as a hint of snow cover in the Rocky Mountains, never mind anywhere else in North America.

Parfive, the direct focal point of both 2012 and 2011 images was Panama, with California above and South America below. Both shots are almost centered on the Equator, with Canada barely showing in either under massive cloud cover.

The 1/23 was the 2012 image, and it's got far more white than the other 2 images. If you look at all of them back and forth, there's more ice and snow in the 2012 picture than either of the other 2.

I'm looking at the last 2 globe photos in the bottom of this link for 2012 and 2011 btw, just so we're looking at the same pictures: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2096119/Nasa-reveals-second-stunning-hi-def-Blue-Marble-image-world--capturing-parts-Marble-left-out.html

The Suomo satellite one is captioned:
"The 2012 version of Nasa's 'Blue Marble' space images is the most high-resolution image of Earth ever, according to the space agency. It's a composite image taken by the new Suomi satellite on January 4"

Then below says:
"The new image is a composite of six separate orbits taken on January 23, 2012 by the Suomi NPP satellite."

The consistency only being that it was shot in Jan 2012.

The 2011 image below that (the greener one) is captioned:
"2011's Blue Marble: This mesmerising view of Earth is a montage of images taken by the Terra satellite orbiting 435miles above the planet's surface"

And text:
"Last year's image was taken by a space camera onboard the Nasa satellite Terra, which is orbiting 435miles above the Earth's surface."

The green photo I linked from 2005:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/North_America_satellite_orthographic.jpg

Does not have a date or caption, but in the html, it says 2/29, so that may be the date it was shot. It's greener, but it does have snow, just not large swaths of snow... not a single satellite of the north american region has large swaths of snow however.

I've been trying to find a color photo shot from the 1970's - 2000's, but most are infrared or b/w photos.

Hi Itsa:). I'm not arguing that the earth is drying up:P. The atmosphere and water are contained within our ozone layer, it's not blowing out into space or we wouldn't be alive. It's the circulation pattern that's changed.

Even if you drill holes in your ice cubes in a glass of water, the levels of the water doesn't change in the least, nor will the level of the water rise or fall when the cubes melt, because the cubes displace water anyway. Seems like simple logic and it has always made me think the idea of 'global warming' was alarmist and irrelevant.

Actually, since I said that, I realized that I never actually tested it. So I just threw a rock in a glass, filled it 1/2 full of ice cubes, then filled the water to the exact top of the rock, and will let the ice melt to see if it actually does rise above the rock. I never actually did that, my observation was always based on melting ice in a soda not changing any volume, so in an hour, I'll know if it actually immerses anything. I doubt it will, but don't want to wonder:).

That said, by simple logic, the draining of rivers, lakes and aquafers into holes drilled for pumping out oil lowers water levels and gives less surface area for evaporation in those areas. How does that factor change wind patterns?

I'm no scientist. Beyond knowing that the majority of scientists are alarmed about climate change, and politicians don't think there is any, I just found these satellite photos odd, and I'm sure people are studying them. It's the pace of the change that's bugging me from looking at them directly.

You CAN see that the land is changed. Parfive is correct that older satellite photos are colored in, but they didn't just randomly pick the colors, all satellite photos are colored based on topography features. So why ARE they different over the years? Why didn't they color them the same way?

Anyone can google satellite images and see for themselves. I'm just curious WHY.

And to say that it's the Democrats doing it is wrong, Clinton butchered NASA's budget by 2/3... Obama butchered it even more. NASA employees and scientists have no love for Democrats. They sure aren't coloring their satellite images for political reasons, because NASA already knows they're not going to get more money out of Democrats.