• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"You can see environmental damage from orbit"

TheBoyPaj

Graduate Poster
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
1,640
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4745963.stm

This sounds very dubious to me. Spotting erosion and deforestation from space? And this sounds like scaremongering too:

Commander Eileen Collins: "The atmosphere almost looks like an eggshell on an egg, it's so very thin," she said. "We know that we don't have much air - we need to protect what we have."

Does she have any evidence that it's thinner than it ever was before? If she's so concerned, maybe she shouldn't have burnt up all that rocket fuel to get up there in the first place?
 
TheBoyPaj said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4745963.stm

This sounds very dubious to me. Spotting erosion and deforestation from space? And this sounds like scaremongering too:



Does she have any evidence that it's thinner than it ever was before? If she's so concerned, maybe she shouldn't have burnt up all that rocket fuel to get up there in the first place?

Isn't she just presenting her subjective impression of the apparent fragility of Earth's biosphere? The atmosphere does look awfully thin from space. Doesn't sound to me like she's saying, "Gosh, there sure isn't as much atmosphere as there used to be!"

:)
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Does she have any evidence that it's thinner than it ever was before?

Where does she say that it's thinner that it ever was before?

As for thickness, she's right:

The Earth has been compared to a single cell, and the atmosphere is the cell's membrane. The atmosphere serves to protect the delicate functions of life from the harsh radiation of the Sun. It filters out the harmful ultraviolet rays, while allowing visible light to shine through and nourish the Earth's vegetation. Most people look to the sky and are amazed by the wide open space that seems to go on forever. In reality, however, the atmosphere is very small compared to the rest of the planet. The Earth itself is nearly 13,000 km in diameter, but the atmosphere rises only a few tens of kilometers above the surface. If you were to compare the Earth to an ordinary apple, the atmosphere would be only as thick as the apple's skin.
Source
 
No, she's not exactly saying that it has become thinner. But who cares how thin it looks? That's what it's supposed to look like, and it has been able to support life on Earth for billions of years so far.

She might as well look down at her house and say "it's tiny! I'll never fit in there!"
 
Okay, so, what about Cmdr. Collins' claim that you can see erosion and deforestation from low Earth orbit with the unaided eye?
 
tracer said:
Okay, so, what about Cmdr. Collins' claim that you can see erosion and deforestation from low Earth orbit with the unaided eye?


That doesn't seem unlikely.


BrazilDeforest1.jpg




That smoke on the top of this image is from a brush clearing fire.

Not too hard to see the pattern of deforestation. It's like fingers fanning out into the rainforest.

roadsfires.jpg
 
Silicon said:
That doesn't seem unlikely.


BrazilDeforest1.jpg




That smoke on the top of this image is from a brush clearing fire.

Not too hard to see the pattern of deforestation. It's like fingers fanning out into the rainforest.

roadsfires.jpg

From what altitude were your photos taken? Would they be comparable to what could be seen from the space station? I also found her claim dubious unless she is remarking on what could be seen through a telescope from the station.
 
Re: Re: "You can see environmental damage from orbit"

Neutiquam Erro said:
Isn't she just presenting her subjective impression of the apparent fragility of Earth's biosphere?

Yeah. It's a comment like the Big Blue Marble comment from the surface of the Moon.

That one picture from the surface of the Moon was worth the cost of the space program. That one impression, that one myth, that one image of a fragile ball on which all of humanity but three lived, taken not by a robot but by human hands holding a camera, looking back at the cradle, that was well worth a fraction of what it costs to dick around in Iraq for a year.

But people are jaded and cynical these days, and they smoke way too much dope, which has been way too bred for potency, and they don't care. Not to mention that they don't know the difference between "dubious" and "doubtful."
 
Just as well you're not talking about me there, isn't it? Otherwise I'd have to ask for evidence of my dope smoking.


du·bi·ous Audio pronunciation of "dubious" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (db-s, dy-)
adj.

1. Fraught with uncertainty or doubt; undecided.
2. Arousing doubt; doubtful: a dubious distinction.
3. Of questionable character: dubious profits.
 
The presence of a visible atmosphere is evidence of erosion. So is the absence of visible impact cratering.

Did I miss something?
 
John Bentley said:
From what altitude were your photos taken? Would they be comparable to what could be seen from the space station? I also found her claim dubious unless she is remarking on what could be seen through a telescope from the station.

Ever seen an Imax movie filmed on the shuttle or the space station?

You can see details like this. They're plainly visible with a wide-angle lens.

See "Blue Planet" in Imax. It was filmed on the space shuttle. It shows deforestation of the Amazon from space.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005BCOS/103-9337657-6907865?v=glance


She's not lying, or being payrolled by Greenpeace.

Many astronauts before her have remarked on the same thing.

If you can see the great wall of china from space, you can see this vast stretches of carved-out rainforest.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_092
 
Silicon said:
Ever seen an Imax movie filmed on the shuttle or the space station?

You can see details like this. They're plainly visible with a wide-angle lens.

See "Blue Planet" in Imax. It was filmed on the space shuttle. It shows deforestation of the Amazon from space.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005BCOS/103-9337657-6907865?v=glance


She's not lying, or being payrolled by Greenpeace.

Many astronauts before her have remarked on the same thing.

If you can see the great wall of china from space, you can see this vast stretches of carved-out rainforest.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_092

I stand corrected.
 
I'm actually kind of wondering why this is a controversial subject at all.

I notice on today's Drudge Report, there is the headline "ASTRONAUTS CLAIM ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ON EARTH SEEN FROM SHUTTLE."
http://www.drudgereport.com/

That's Drudge's headline, but the linked story doesn't couch it in the suspicious sounding "Astronauts claim." It merely says "Environmental damage seen from shuttle"

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20...N0475285_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SPACE-SHUTTLE-DC.html



Now given that this ISN'T something new that astronauts are reporting seeing... and in fact that the NASA/IMAX film Blue Planet is SPECIFICALLY about the environment as seen from the space shuttle... is there something specific going on as far as some kind of I'll say right wing (meaning Drudge) attack on NASA? Is there a problem with a NASA astronaut being (even in this mild-milquetoast way) vaugely pro-environment?

The folks asking in this forum, are you bringing it up because you saw it on Drudge or heard it on Limbaugh or something? Because if you read the actual comments made by the astronauts, they're quite uncontroversial. I've heard stronger environmental rhetoric about "taking good care of the earth" from a George Bush Earth-Day speech. IIt's about as uncontroversial a phrasing as I can imagine.
 
I brought it up because I didn't think that deforestation and the like would be that noticeable from orbit. Apparently it is.

I still hold that the "air as thin as an egg shell" comment is silly though.
 
Because it's meaningless. The atmosphere is as big as it is, and probably as big as it has ever been. It's pointless to compare the thickness of it with the size of the Earth. If it was thicker, would taking care of our environment be any less important?

It's like saying that our skin is only a few millimetres thick, so it's vitally important to look after it. One does not necessarily follow the other.
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Because it's meaningless. The atmosphere is as big as it is, and probably as big as it has ever been. It's pointless to compare the thickness of it with the size of the Earth. If it was thicker, would taking care of our environment be any less important?

It's like saying that our skin is only a few millimetres thick, so it's vitally important to look after it. One does not necessarily follow the other.

Well yes, you know damned well your skin isn't going to hold up to a knife. If something starts rotting it, you're in trouble.

Like the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest, the Asian Brown Cloud is also visible from the shuttle, IIRC.

If the eyes of the shuttle could see underwater, the Gulf Sea Dead Zone would also be noticed.
 
But you'd be equally concerned about rotting if it was an inch thick, wouldn't you? The thickness is not a deciding factor.
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Just as well you're not talking about me there, isn't it? Otherwise I'd have to ask for evidence of my dope smoking.

Heaven forfend! I would never talk about you.

du·bi·ous Audio pronunciation of "dubious" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (db-s, dy-)
adj.

1. Fraught with uncertainty or doubt; undecided.
2. Arousing doubt; doubtful: a dubious distinction.
3. Of questionable character: dubious profits.

Hey, there's no need to be nauseous.
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Because it's meaningless. The atmosphere is as big as it is, and probably as big as it has ever been. It's pointless to compare the thickness of it with the size of the Earth. If it was thicker, would taking care of our environment be any less important?
So what if it's meaningless (which I disagree with but that is not my point here)? Does everything she says have to meaty? You going to serve on the off-the-curff censorship panel to insure that everything said from space is weighty and passes your own particular level of scrutiny.

Sheesh. Lighten up. Let her have her say. Same for all the rest of them (the astronauts).
 

Back
Top Bottom