by mikechillit » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:34 pm
Glad to see so much discussion on this very misleading graphic. I noticed it for the Australian Outback first, but then noticed it all over the place. The image is simply wrong in so many ways it isn't reliable and shouldn't be used. There is a 2000 version variously listed as a National Geographic image, but it's also NASA. It is far more accurate in the areas I'm able to check. "Transient Light" is a euphemism for "we screwed up" and shouldn't be tolerated by NASA. Staying with Australia to illustrate, if one uses the combined light from Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth as a comparison to that vastly greater light from NT and eastern WA, the logical population estimate would be in the 100 million range just in the Outback. That's absurd, and Kangaroos don't pack flashlights. Please retire this ridiculous example of NASA fail.
Glad to see so much discussion on this very misleading graphic. I noticed it for the Australian Outback first, but then noticed it all over the place. The image is simply wrong in so many ways it isn't reliable and shouldn't be used. There is a 2000 version variously listed as a National Geographic image, but it's also NASA. It is far more accurate in the areas I'm able to check. "Transient Light" is a euphemism for "we screwed up" and shouldn't be tolerated by NASA. Staying with Australia to illustrate, if one uses the combined light from Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth as a comparison to that vastly greater light from NT and eastern WA, the logical population estimate would be in the 100 million range just in the Outback. That's absurd, and Kangaroos don't pack flashlights. Please retire this ridiculous example of NASA fail.