NASA creates world's first global forest map using Lasers
57 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bravehat;23540987]I expected more trees :ohdear:
Cause that ain't much.[/QUOTE]
I expected less trees
Australia sure hates trees.
We're all screwed. :frown:
It's not going to show each tree, jesus. It's a representation of very dense forest. I look in my back yard and I see woods but that's not a true forest.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;23544293]It's not going to show each tree, jesus. It's a representation of very dense forest. I look in my back yard and I see woods but that's not a true forest.[/QUOTE]
I wont be happy until I see every individual goddamn blade of grass on that map!
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;23544293]It's not going to show each tree, jesus. It's a representation of very dense forest. I look in my back yard and I see woods but that's not a true forest.[/QUOTE]
It's still not as dense as it should be.
[QUOTE=booster;23540991]Entire Finland is forest :downs:[/QUOTE]
We're a bunch of tree-hugging hippies
[QUOTE=Acolyt3;23545431]It's still not as dense as it should be.[/QUOTE]
I think it's splotches of land where there aren't people regularly.
[QUOTE=Flaming Neko;23543905]Australia sure hates trees.[/QUOTE]
Obviously Australia banned trees years ago duh.
[QUOTE=Applecrap;23542325]Have you ever been there?
I go every summer, I say this map is accurate for the most part.[/QUOTE]
I [I]live[/I] in Iowa, and I can tell you that we have lots of forests.
They're just not very dense and they're far apart. v:v:v
Oh hey look it's the White Mountains, and Sabino Canyon! Two places I live really close too.
There's no forest in North Dakota? Interesting.
I truly expected more forests.
[QUOTE=bobste;23543512]i think the map only detects trees above a certain height[/QUOTE]
Oh, well that explains alot.
NASA is cool
I was expecting some more forests. Really makes you think about what could happen if deforestation continues as it has been.
Wait a minute NASA... [B]You[/B] mean to tell [I]me[/I] that you can find trees above a certain height [I][B]on [/B][/I][I][B]mountains!?!?[/B][/I]
Preposterous!
[IMG]http://unlockableachievements.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/dr_evil_laser.jpg[/IMG]
Now using this Giant "Laser"...
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;23549366]Wait a minute NASA... [B]You[/B] mean to tell [I]me[/I] that you can find trees above a certain height [I][B]on [/B][/I][I][B]mountains!?!?[/B][/I]
Preposterous![/QUOTE]
Somehow I imagine that since we've had topographic maps for at least 2 centuries NASA has some vague idea of where mountains are.
[QUOTE=Agent Cobra;23541669][img]http://pieceofsite.seniorbrown.com/files/forums/NS/ion_cannon.jpg[/img]
OH SHIT WRONG LASER
o[/QUOTE]
Isn't that from the DSC special powering the future?
I doubt this is accurate. No forests in India ? But the pyreneans are a big forest ?
[QUOTE=Ickylevel;23567165]I doubt this is accurate. No forests in India ? But the pyreneans are a big forest ?[/QUOTE]
this is a map for really dense forests, and India doesn't have much of them, except for the eastern part. There is a lot more woodland than is shown on the map, but that map looks about right for thick forest.
Nasa can make my babies.
People need to understand, the white doesn't necessarily mean desert. It can still be tundra, plains, grassland. This is about right.
And there's a good deal of trees in California.
[QUOTE=bravehat;23540987]I expected more trees :ohdear:
Cause that ain't much.[/QUOTE]
There is more than that. I just don't think the readings were very sensitive.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;23569750]There is more than that. I just don't think the readings were very sensitive.[/QUOTE]
Oh I'm sorry Richard Simmons, do YOU have a forest mapping space laser?
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist :v:
Richard Simmons has a satellite dedicated to monitoring his massive hair-do
Not that accurate. Checked it in the netherlands, and we have a huge forest , but that one isn't shown on the map.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.