Jeffro said-
Comparing straight-line measurements of landmasses on different parts of the globe (or the same part of the world from a different perspective) receding away from the viewer does not give a reliable indication of scale, because the landmasses are on a curved surface. However, features nearer the center of the images (i.e. near the part of the 'globe' nearest the viewer) are the same size but with different rotation (about 6.8 degrees anticlockwise for Banks Island and Victoria Island in northern Canada). The zoom factor is the same for both images. As previously stated, the images have slightly different rotation, but the elements you labeled '1' and '3' are not applicable, and the different rotation is not enough to make the icemass 'appear' significantly larger.
The differences you mention actually make the point that the photos are comparing apples and oranges, and obviously the rotation of the Earth is going to alter the effect of the SIZE comparion, esp considering the inevitable 'fish-eye effect of the lens.
Look at the curvature of the horizon. Look at the chain of islands in the far background, noting how their relationship is altered due to the different location of the satellite (possible fish-eye effect of the lens having an effect). Heck, look at the Aleutian Islands, and notice how their Southern-most portion borders on the upper image, but a similar location appears about 25% into the lower image. The land mass shown on the right photo includes land that is much more South of the view shown on the left (cropped/centered differently). Notice the difference in EXPOSURE, where the upper image is DARKER (under-exposed) compared to the lower.
ALL of these differences indicate a false comparion is being made between the two photos (for reasons that you and I don't know), but IF the combined graphic was assembled by the newspaper, OR the images were cherry-picked by the newspaper to EXAGGERATE the effect, then it doesn't look good for their credibility and eyebrows SHOULD be raised. If the composite image was provided by NASA, etc, then the blame is on them for failing to provide photo evidence that allow a valid size comparison. That's kind of the point: who created the composite image?
Obviously the best way to lie is not with facts, but via slightly altering evidence via Photoshop, etc. It easier to exaggerate such differences with such subtle manipulation of images, and if the newspaper is as biased on the GCC issue as Besty says, it's not out of the realm of possibilities; I wouldn't put ANYTHING past a mainsteam rag like the Daily Mail that is more driven by concerns of generating massive page views, creating titillating headlines, etc.
But please don't tell me there's NOT a difference in the images when I can see it with my own eyes, and even measure the difference between what SHOULD be two apparently equilinear points in the images (even accounting for differences in parallax, "fish-eye" effects of the lens, etc).
Adam
