Apologies if I'm just having a reading comprehension fail - but where does it explain why the middle-west of Australia is so bright compared to the rest of Australia and particularly Sydney which should be brighter?
Apologies if I'm just having a reading comprehension fail - but where does it explain why the middle-west of Australia is so bright compared to the rest of Australia and particularly Sydney which should be brighter?
Jerry Bonnell sent that link as a way of explanation. I don't think it fully explains it, other than it could be a accumulation of data showing wildfires, which are common in the outback.
Jerry Bonnell sent that link as a way of explanation. I don't think it fully explains it, other than it could be a accumulation of data showing wildfires, which are common in the outback.
Cheers Peter
Thats what My post said
Quote
On reading the caption, I note that this image is composed of many images taken over a period between April and October, So all the bush fires and other lights are a composition, so they were not all there all at once as is portrade in that image. (Unquote)
Cheers
Quote
On reading the caption, I note that this image is composed of many images taken over a period between April and October, So all the bush fires and other lights are a composition, so they were not all there all at once as is portrade in that image. (Unquote)
Cheers
Sorry Ron, missed that one. Wasn't really reading all comments, as I thought the link Jerry Bonnell sent solved the mystery.
An old friend of mine is a brilliant scientist but also a sucker for every nutjob conspiracy theory out there - and I mean Out There!
He is convinced this is all an underhanded attempt by somebody in the US astronomy establishment to "reclaim their night", by undermining dark sites in foreign countries - such as the Australian Outback and the Atacama Coast - while artificially darkening US sites - such as MK - that are suffering growing LP issues.
i am still unconvinced about the fires. Look at the image attached and the scale - those are some huge areas for wildfires - some of them a couple of hundred k's across. I know that these images are composites over several nights - but surely they weren't lit up in the same place with each pass, and they could filter out any fires as 'noise' - much the same as stacking astrophotos...?
i am still unconvinced about the fires. Look at the image attached and the scale - those are some huge areas for wildfires - some of them a couple of hundred k's across. I know that these images are composites over several nights - but surely they weren't lit up in the same place with each pass, and they could filter out any fires as 'noise' - much the same as stacking astrophotos...?
city lights identify major population centers, tracking the effects of human activity and influence across the globe. That makes nighttime images of our fair planet among the most interesting and important views from space.
Because different areas burned at different times when the satellite passed over, the cumulative result in the composite view gives the appearance of a massive blaze. These fires are temporary features, in contrast to cities which are always there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danack
I wonder if it may be at least partly an algorithm fail.
My understanding is that they took pictures on lots of of nights and then used used the results that had the brightest pictures to be included in the final picture.
For the rest of the world, this means that the nights most free of clouds were used.
For Australia, it means that if there was a bushfire on any of the nights that a region was being imaged, then that nights image would be used, as it would obviously be brighter than every other night.
*FLEX*
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAustralian
On close examination, the image shows a 'glow' around each fire, as it illuminates the surrounding dark landscape.
That sounds wrong. Fires on the ground aren't going to illuminate the surrounding landscape that much unless the flames are leaping up to a decent height.
What will happen much more is that the smoke from the fire is illuminated from underneath by the fire, which would also help explain why the fires appear so large compared to the city lights.
The photo composite is total BS as far as I'm concerned, a large portion of the area has nothing to burn, it' described as city lights on several sights and bush fires on others
Seems a lot of bush fires in NW WA but no lights yet a lot of lights and no bush fires shown in other countries so what is it???
The photo composite is total BS as far as I'm concerned, a large portion of the area has nothing to burn, it' described as city lights on several sights and bush fires on others
Seems a lot of bush fires in NW WA but no lights yet a lot of lights and no bush fires shown in other countries so what is it???
Can you be more granular in your statement please and name a few specific areas?
I've taken a close look at the zoomed in areas of WA and there is plenty to burn when you look at the brush concentration in the Percival and Dora lakes and surrounding area.
Also, is there any specific reason why the scientific community at NASA would try to deceive the general population on something they really don't care about and probably never will?
i am inclined to think it is wrong like half of the comments here
the reason being i think we could compare apples with apples here and look at the middle of africa...... experiencing summer (mostly) the same time as oz with more fire risk than us and their interior looks pollution free!
something simply does not look right in australia
pat
Gibson Desert, the Great Sandy Desert, very little bushfire material, the link posted by Glenc refers to city lights, where are all the fires in Africa, their bushfire season is from July-October.
So it just so happens no fires where burning in Africa during the nights in October when these images where compiled but a huge number of fires flared in WA over the same period.
