Satellite Images Show Floating Objects in Indian Ocean

Satellite images released by the Australian government show possible objects floating in the Indian Ocean that could be wreckage from Malaysian Airlines flight 370. The images are of the same object. One is panchromatic, meaning it is based on all wavelengths of light falling on each pixel. The other is multispectral, meaning it is based on specific wavelengths. (Source: Australian Maritime Safety Authority)

Could floating objects seen in satellite images of the Indian Ocean off the coast of Australia be wreckage from the missing Malaysian Airlines jet that disappeared on March 8?

The Australian government thought the satellite images above, and another pair lower down in this post, warranted a search by aircraft. But the first try has turned up nothing — because of limited visibility due to clouds and rain, as this Tweet from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority states:

RAAF P3 crew unable to locate debris. Cloud & rain limited visbility. Further aircraft to continue search for #MH370

— AMSA News (@AMSA_News) March 20, 2014

Here’s a map of the area in the Indian Ocean that was searched by the Australians today:

Source: Australian Maritime Safety Authority

And here’s what that area of the Indian Ocean looked like to NASA’s Aqua satellite today:

Extensive cloudiness obscures parts of the Indian Ocean off the west coast of Australia, as seen in this image based on data from NASA’s Aqua satellite. (Source: NASA)

To my eye it appears that the area being searched is underneath that big patch of cloudiness seen this image. Let’s hope it clears.

Lastly, another pair of images showing another a second possible object:

Source: Australian Maritime Safety Authority

As more remote sensing and other kinds of imagery come in, I’ll post them here at ImaGeo. So stay tuned.

View the original article here

The March of Climate Determinism

In the late 2000s, a new climate change story line emerged in the media.

The seeds for this narrative were perhaps sown ten years ago, when a worst-case scenario report commissioned by the Pentagon triggered breathless headlines about a research field known as “abrupt climate change.” Perhaps you saw the 2004 movie.

The sensationalist portrayal of a sudden climate-induced doomsday was dismissed in scientific circles as implausible, but the film caught people’s attention.

What followed was a more sober analysis from Beltway think tanks assessing the linkages between climate change and geopolitical strife. Congress held hearings on the climate/national security nexus and the issue –while politically contentious–was taken seriously in the U.S. military and intelligence communities. Indeed, climate change was projected to be a major driver of future conflicts and instability around the world.

I wrote about this emerging issue on numerous occasions in the late 2000s, including in this space. (Here’s a more recent round-up of high profile studies.)

In the last several years, some scholars and influential pundits have argued that global warming played a major role in the Arab Spring. The notion that climate change sparked Syria’s hellish civil war has also gained currency in some circles.

When we get to this point–when famines and wars with deeply rooted socio-political causes–are attributed to climate change–we are approaching the same territory inhabited by those who routinely cast every severe weather event and catastrophe in the context of climate change. (This unfortunate tendency is rued by some in the climate community.)

Researchers who study the environment/security intersection–and who strive to remain unbiased–know that the climate change-security discourse has taken a problematic direction. (Indeed, some warned about it.) At the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security program, read this new post by Francois Gemenne, who writes:

Debate on the human security dimensions of climate change has often been cast from a deterministic perspective, where global warming will automatically translate into mass migrations, competition for resources and land, and ultimately conflict and devastation. There are two problems with this rhetoric.

To understand those problems, read the whole commentary. And when you’re done, check out this 2007 piece by Mike Hulme, who also warned about the seduction of climate determinism.

View the original article here