Haak's APHG
Follow
Find tag "biogeography"
357 views | +0 today
Haak's APHG
Page for My AP Human Geography Course
Curated by Dean Haakenson
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Dean Haakenson from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Earth's Green Places Mapped

"Although 75% of the planet is a relatively unchanging ocean of blue, the remaining 25% of Earth's surface is a dynamic green. Data from the NASA/NOAA Suomi NPP satellite is able to detect these subtle differences in greenness. The resources on this page highlight our ever-changing planet, using highly detailed vegetation index data from the satellite, developed by scientists at NOAA. The darkest green areas are the lushest in vegetation, while the pale colors are sparse in vegetation cover either due to snow, drought, rock, or urban areas. Satellite data from April 2012 to April 2013 was used to generate these animations and images."


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Louis Culotta's curator insight, July 16, 2013 2:05 PM

This is something to check out if you want to see first hand look at the green and not so green places on our planet. It really makes you see the parts of the world that get enough rain and the areas that don't that makes what we see from Satellite images from space.

Magnus Gustafsson's curator insight, July 16, 2013 2:13 PM

Useful insiight how we humans can change the world!

Al Picozzi's comment, July 18, 2013 8:19 AM
Can really see the effect of development in the Amazon river basin. Also this system can be a great use to help in areas that are facing a drought.
Rescooped by Dean Haakenson from Geography Education
Scoop.it!

Image Analysis

Image Analysis | Haak's APHG | Scoop.it
One of a number of large wildfires that have affected northern California in 2012, the Chips fire burned more than 75,000 acres by the time firefighters had contained it.

 

2012 is going to go down in United States history as the year with the most acres burned in a single year (statistics only go back to 1960).  The two featured images were taken earlier this month to display a Northern California wildfire; both with the same spatial resolution and acquired for the same instrument (Advanced Land Imager on EO-1 satellite), yet they are quite distinct.  One shows an aerial photograph, displaying exactly what standard visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (showing us what our eyes would normally see).  The other image displays a false color (near infrared) image. 

 

Questions to ponder: what advantages does each image have for analyzing the fire damage?  Drawbacks?  How does the data from both images work together to create a more complete picture of the situation?     

 

Tags: remote sensing, images, environment, land use, disasters, biogeography. 


Via Seth Dixon
more...
Lisa Fonseca's comment, September 17, 2012 7:22 AM
The first image displays a better visual of exactly where the fire damaged the land, the second image doesn't provide a clear visual to someone, the land effected is foggy. If I was going to visit this specific area in Northern California I would much rather use the first aerial image.
Jesse Gauthier's comment, September 17, 2012 7:31 AM
The first image gives a good spatial shot of where the exact hot spots are located that cannot be seen by the naked eye. The second photo will give you a spatial view of what you can actually see. Both are needed to put out the hot spot because they each will provide two different solutions to stop the burning acres.
Seth Dixon's curator insight, September 25, 2013 5:33 AM

2012 is going to go down in United States history as the year with the most acres burned in a single year (statistics only go back to 1960).  The two featured images were taken earlier this month to display a Northern California wildfire; both with the same spatial resolution and acquired for the same instrument (Advanced Land Imager on EO-1 satellite), yet they are quite distinct.  One shows an aerial photograph, displaying exactly what standard visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (showing us what our eyes would normally see).  The other image displays a false color (near infrared) image. 


Questions to ponder: what advantages does each image have for analyzing the fire damage?  Drawbacks?  How does the data from both images work together to create a more complete picture of the situation?     


Tags: remote sensing, images, environment, land use, disasters, biogeography.