Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Help To Map Light Pollution 152

Posted by kdawson from the thousand-stars-in-the-sky dept.
jcgam69 writes "October 1 marked the first day of the Great Worldwide Star Count, a half-month citizen science project that will harness thousands of observers across the globe to help map light pollution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Help To Map Light Pollution More

Help To Map Light Pollution

Comments Filter:

  • Here ya go: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @10:38PM (#20832955) Journal
    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image/earth_night.jpg [nasa.gov]

    Done.

    • Re:Here ya go: (Score:5, Funny)

      by Cassius Corodes ( 1084513 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @11:03PM (#20833125)
      That is totally a web 1.0 solution. What we are looking for is a web 2.0 solution - we need to harness the dynamics of social groups to create solutions for the 21 century. Either that or just waste time.

      • Re:Here ya go: (Score:5, Funny)

        by Puff of Logic ( 895805 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @11:17PM (#20833203)

        That is totally a web 1.0 solution. What we are looking for is a web 2.0 solution - we need to harness the dynamics of social groups to create solutions for the 21 century. Either that or just waste time.
        Is that the part where we leverage a synergy, or is that Web 1.0?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jsse ( 254124 )
        Well, why parent was modded funny was totally beyond me.

        Now I do my part: I live in Hong Kong and the only star I could see all these years is that red dot behind the moon, probably Mars.

        Now you can check Hong Kong as the complete star-seeing blind spot in your map. Thanks.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by UserGoogol ( 623581 )
        That, and the amount of light radiated into space is not the same as the degree to which the sky is obscured. There's obviously a fairly tight relationship between the two, but measuring the latter directly is always nice.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )
        Web2.0? that is so last week, all savvy and fast-track companies are already on web 3.0 the really successful companies are using technology that is incompatible with all users browsers!

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Zymergy ( 803632 ) *
      That's My Favorite Desktop Wallpaper! http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02991 [nasa.gov] Original Caption Released with Image: Global city lights. The Eastern U.S., Europe, and Japan are brightly lit by their cities, while the interiors of Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America remain (for now) dark and lightly populated. (Image by Craig Mayhew and Robert Simmon, NASA GSFC. Based on data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program). FULL RESOLUTION IMAGE: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA02 [nasa.gov]

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by datadigger ( 1014733 )
        WOW, that's great! They managed to find that exceptional, once in a lifetime, moment when it's midnight all over the world at the same time.

  • Um. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Adambomb ( 118938 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @10:39PM (#20832961) Journal
    Wouldn't it be just as easy to record a spin of the earth from the dark side?

    Am i missing exactly why the stars light pollution keeps us from seeing would be a more useful measure than simply the brightness of light emitted?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RuBLed ( 995686 )
      Darth Vader: Wouldn't it be just as easy to record a spin of the earth from the dark side?
      Luke SkyGazer: No I won't. Try harder.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xest ( 935314 )
      Maybe it's because if we have a star count it's easier to write alarmist headlines like "Light pollution prevents us seeing 10 million stars" or whatever, i.e. the type of headline required nowadays to pull Joe average's attention away from Britney Spears' child custody battle.

      That said however I'm sure they could calculate how many stars aren't visible due to light pollution using some math/science type thing but perhaps again it's because by making a big deal out of it it's easier to bring people's attent
      • That said however I'm sure they could calculate how many stars aren't visible due to light pollution using some math/science type thing but perhaps again it's because by making a big deal out of it it's easier to bring people's attention to the issue.

        In the 30 seconds that I used the program Starry Night, I remember that it already had a feature where you could show what the night sky looks like with different levels of light pollution, which I'm guessing is a simple mathematical calculation, and you could

    • It's not just that simple, but I think light pollution could be better calculated using that and some algorithms. One thing to take into account is elevation, at higher elevations the same amount of light visible from space wouldn't equal the light pollution. With less atmosphere to go through, more light will pass into space so the satellite will record a higher value than the same lights at a lower elevation, while less will actually be reflected back to the ground by the atmosphere so there will be le

      • I just figured the raw data from that kind of imagery would be sufficient for any kind of analysis rather than having to actually merge together the different sets of data from thousands of individuals concerning whats visible. I'm sure the number of sats you'd need for a full measure of the escaping light would be a lot easier to work with than this initiative.

        Word though.

  • Seems Like a Cool Idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rm999 ( 775449 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @10:42PM (#20832981)
    But can't we just view how much light there is in space from satellite photos and guess what the light pollution would be (like in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/86/20040921144929!Usa_night.gif [wikimedia.org])?

    A few 1000 observers will offer very little resolution, considering the fact that light pollution is very localized. I live in the middle of an urban area, but can drive a few miles to see 10x as many stars.

    • Re:Seems Like a Cool Idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by Phroon ( 820247 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @11:09PM (#20833141) Homepage

      But can't we just view how much light there is in space from satellite photos and guess what the light pollution would be (like in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/86/20040921144929!Usa_night.gif [wikimedia.org])?
      We can. In fact, it's been done [inquinamentoluminoso.it]. This isn't the real goal of the project, though:

      "This Windows to the Universe Citizen Science Event is designed to encourage learning in astronomy!"
      They're trying to increase awareness of astronomy and the detrimental effects of light pollution. If it just gets people aware it's worth it. I might just do it myself so I have a measure of how much light pollution there really is in my backyard.

      • Re:Seems Like a Cool Idea (Score:4, Informative)

        by Abcd1234 ( 188840 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @09:04AM (#20836553) Homepage
        It's also worth noting that light pollution, represented as the total amount of waste light emitted skyward, doesn't give a realistic picture of the actual effects at ground level. Depending on the locale, things like humidity, atmospheric particulate levels, etc, can have a *dramatic* effect on the number of stars visible, even with moderate levels of light pollution. Consequently, having real, human observations of on-site effects can provide a more realistic picture.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by dwarmstr ( 993558 )
      Satellite measurements only catch the uplight. Horizontally emitted light ends up producing much more light pollution per lumen emitted than uplight.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Alsee ( 515537 )
      But can't we just view how much light there is in space from satellite photos and guess what the light pollution would be (like in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/86/20040921144929!Usa_night.gif [wikimedia.org]

      Pfffft! That's not a map, THIS [nasa.gov] is a map!

      Notable sights to observe:
      The first and foremost site to see is the Nile river (solid white line in the dark desert of top-right Africa)
      Trans-Siberian railway (connecting Eastern Europe to the Pacific)
      The ~4000 year old Silk Road trade route (arch from

  • Inaccurate... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WithLove ( 1150737 ) <<jdharms> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @10:53PM (#20833061)
    The sample size will be way too small. And how are you going to map rural areas where no one lives? And how do you know that everyone is counting every star (and just once!)? A good idea in theory, and if the project's aim is simply to get the general public aware of how bad pollution is... I guess it's a plausible concept. But it's in no way accurate. I mean, what if it's cloudy? This seems like just another thing to do so people can say "harnessing the power of (insert any word for great number of people here) to (insert undoubtedly noble concept/idea here)." I mean, really, there's astronomers who do this, right?
    • I take it that neither you nor the moderator who modded you Insightful bothered to RTFM. If either of you had, you'd know that you're being asked to look at one, specific constellation and find out how much of it you can see. You're not being asked to enter an exact count of stars, but a rating of darkness.

      To be a little more clear, if you can only find one or two stars of the constellation, you give it a 1; if you can find the main stars, a 2, and so on, up to the highest rating, which represents "too m

    • "Insightful"? Good god.

      1. If it's "rural areas where no one lives", then where will the light pollution come from? Last I checked, deer and squirrels weren't lining up to buy Halo 3.

      2. You're not asked to count all the stars, you're asked to count a constellation and compare your numbers to a magnitude chart. And if someone misses a star they should have seen, that's what we call "experimental error".

      3. If it's cloudy, DO IT TOMORROW.

      Oh, and if there's a link, RTFA. It'll save your fingers in the long r
  • Whats a map light?

    Tm

    ;)

  • Support the idea but ..... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pauljuno ( 998497 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @10:55PM (#20833079)
    As an amateur astronomer I always support these efforts, not so much because they truly add a lot of value as the potential PR they generate. I live in an extremely urban area and can only see planets and the very brightest stars. And the problem is that we tend to generate a lot of light pollution that is a waste. We don't just illuminate the areas that needs it, but throw off a lot of light pollution because our lights are not focused on the needed area. It's like the standard light in your house, you turn it on and it throws light everywhere even though you just needed it to read a book, it's a waste. I'm not a green fanatic, but it just makes economic sense to try and reduce and eliminate waste where it exists .... plus I really miss seeing the Milky Way.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mpe ( 36238 )
      And the problem is that we tend to generate a lot of light pollution that is a waste. We don't just illuminate the areas that needs it, but throw off a lot of light pollution because our lights are not focused on the needed area.

      Assuming the intended area of illumination is actually well illuminated. It can easily be the case that the light in question isn't actually of much use. Even to the point where not having it at all is actually an improvement.

  • How Timely -- Some Advice Please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SRA8 ( 859587 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @10:57PM (#20833093)
    How timely! I am planning to take a trip into Arizona or Colorado this winter *just* to see the unadultered night sky. I'm not entirely sure where to begin -- just drive randomly until i'm in complete darkness? Word of mouth? Any suggestions on how I can finally see the stars for once in my life?!
    • The Stairsteps National Monument in SE Utah would be a good start - though there is still a bit of light pollution (some of it from Las Vegas).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Quarters ( 18322 )
      Arches National Park near Moab Utah was a great place to see stars about 10-12 years ago. I don't know about now. The park entrance is 8-10 miles from Moab (which is a very small town) and the first camping area is something like 18 miles further in.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bkr1_2k ( 237627 )
        Arches is still an excellent choice.

        I might also suggest hopping on a boat and going out a few miles from the coast. A few years ago, I kayaked out about 2 miles to a small island off the coast of Maine with a couple friends. We were the only people on the island that night (occupancy limited to 6 I think due to size) and we could see an unbelievable number of stars, satellites, planets, you name it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Brobock ( 226116 )
      On those long stretches of road where you read signs that say last gas station for a 100 miles. Those are the areas where the stars come at you in 3D and you truly feel that you can grab them with your bare hands. Simply amazing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by alien88 ( 218348 )
      go to Kitt Peak [noao.edu]

    • North of Monument Valley (Score:5, Informative)

      by stefanlasiewski ( 63134 ) <slashdot AT stefanco DOT com> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:32AM (#20833867) Homepage Journal
      Start at Kayenta Arizona [google.com], which is the largest town in the Navajo Nation, and functions as a regional capitol, of sort.

      Bring a good car, several maps, one map which shows BLM Land. camping supplies, plenty of gas, food and water. You'll be in the middle of nowhere, so always make sure you have enough gas.

      Head North on Highway 261, go through Monument Valley, head towards Natural Bridges National Monument [google.com]. Monument Valley is one of the most famous places in the world, yet you can stand on the side of the road without seeing anyone for 30 minutes.

      Drive 4000-feet up the side of a cliff on a crazy curvy old Uranium Road [google.com]. This area is called the 'Gooseneck State Park [utah.com]. When you get to the top, stop and look back south over the valley--- you can see quite far.

      Head north until you leave Gooseneck. This is BLM land. You can drive on any road, find a nice spot and camp. Wait until the nighttime, and check out the stars.

      This is one of the most remote places in the US-- millions of stars. I remember it being so dark, and the stars were so bright that I could see faint shadows from the starlight.
      • This has got to be one of the most +1 Informative posts I've read that is at the same time Offtopic. It is one of the most informative posts even if it was on topic. Wow. great Job.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Krischi ( 61667 )
      If you are around in Texas, the Big Bend National Park [nps.gov] is another good place to watch the stars.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xest ( 935314 )
      The most silent place on Earth I've ever been was monument valley just over the border from Arizona in Utah, however it is a native American reservation so I'm not sure whether you need some kind of permission from the locals to go there by yourself or not.

      Of course there's also no guarantee that the most silent place on Earth I've been is going to be the least lit but I'd say there's a fair chance.

      In all honesty the clearest skies I've seen have always been in Canada and not even necessarily terribly far f

  • Hey, don't ask me (Score:3, Informative)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @11:04PM (#20833133)
    I live real close to Chicago. On a clear night I can see Venus (if it's not too cloudy here in the midwest). I do most of my skywatching here [galaxyzoo.org].
  • there ain't much light pollution at all! It helps when you have a major observatory in town and the city passes "dark sky" ordinances! ;-) So if this is a competition, it's really not fair for the rest of you,. . .

    Definitely lots of stars here! And still NINE planets! :-)

  • The original title (from Firehose) is "Thousands Help To Map Light Pollution". Somehow the editors have managed to make the headline worse by dropping the first word. Good job!
    • The original title (from Firehose) is "Thousands Help To Map Light Pollution". Somehow the editors have managed to make the headline worse by dropping the first word. Good job!

      The original title makes it sound like the task is pretty much done by the time you've read it; much like "Thousands Rally in DC."

      The new title seems more like a plea for us to chip in on the project. I think it's an improvement.

  • Science is too tough (Score:3, Funny)

    by whitehatlurker ( 867714 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @11:42PM (#20833307) Journal
    I sleep at night. All night. Can I do this during the day sometime?

  • Anthropogenic light pollution a media creation (Score:3, Funny)

    by andy314159pi ( 787550 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @11:48PM (#20833347) Journal
    The whole idea that man made lights are causing light pollution is just a hoax foisted onto you by the libural media.
    Laugh. It was funny.

  • In My Area... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HexaByte ( 817350 ) on Tuesday October 02, 2007 @11:58PM (#20833411)
    In my area it's either light pollution or crime. Having been the victim of a couple of car break-ins because we didn't have the outside lights on, I choose light pollution.

    It's either that or armed guards, and electric is cheaper.

    • motion sensors? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Animaether ( 411575 )
      have you considered motion sensors? or IR sensors.. or radiowave sensors.. You'll have the best of all worlds...
      - light when you need it (i.e. somebody is in the vicinity. Heck, the light suddenly popping on has more effect than the light being on continuously)
      - no light when you don't need it (makes the light-pollution people happy)
      - lower electricity bill

      down sides..
      - initial cost (couple bucks)
      - initial installation (screwdriver and some healty common sense when it comes to dealing with electrical wir

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alien88 ( 218348 )
      There are many studies and none of them over the years have shown any correlation between lights and crime. There are many ways you can use lights and still cut down on light pollution. You can use motion sensors, you can use full cutoff shields so the light doesn't go into the sky. These are just a few.

      The idea that more light = safer is false. In some ways, it actually allows criminals to plan how they're going to break into something. Not to mention, if a light is always on, most people just ignore it wh

      • I agree with alien88 and so does the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ, FBI and other U.S. and British government agencies. This page [att.net] has a nice summary of the studies including:

        Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising -- A Report to the U.S. Congress http://www.ncjrs.org/works/index.htm [ncjrs.org] This lengthy report has several references to lighting and crime which indicate that lighting's effect on crime is inconclusive. See chapter seven. These statements are contained in its conclusions:

    • Re:In My Area... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by forkazoo ( 138186 ) <wrosecrans AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:46AM (#20833647) Homepage

      In my area it's either light pollution or crime. Having been the victim of a couple of car break-ins because we didn't have the outside lights on, I choose light pollution.

      It's either that or armed guards, and electric is cheaper.


      Considering a lot of light pollution is mostly a matter of inefficiency... Since you think it's a choice between light pollution and crime, I have to assume that you think that shooting vast amount of light into the sky somehow feeds the moon god, who in turn stops crime out of gratitude.

      Seriously, a big part of the problem is with street lights that don't point all of there light toward the ground. Sure, a really well lit ground will bounce some light back up, but some lights literally just shine right up into the sky.

      Also, in many cases excessively bright lights are used, which results in pools of blinding brilliance with pools of pitch black between them. In that case, the solution to make people feel safer is not to make the light brighter, but more even (and possibly dimmer) so that you can't hide in the harsh shadows.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mpe ( 36238 )
      In my area it's either light pollution or crime. Having been the victim of a couple of car break-ins because we didn't have the outside lights on, I choose light pollution.

      Poorly though out lighting can actually encourage crime. Since it enables the criminals to see what they are doing, be their intention theft or vandalism.

      It's either that or armed guards, and electric is cheaper.

      Another alternative would be a car alarm. One which flashes the internal and external lights on the vehicle will draw peop

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Darth_brooks ( 180756 )
      My neighborhood has no streetlights. We don't have a problem with break-ins because;

      -It's too dark to find our neighborhood. Unless you know it's here, the blazingly bright apartment complexes a mile down the road look like way better targets.

      -It's too dark to see what you're doing. Are you breaking in to a pinto, or a lexus? If there's no moon, it's tough to tell.

      Seriously though, just *having* a light on doesn't do anything more than give a thief a well lit work environment. I took this picture http://fli [flickr.com]
  • OK. I live in Columbus, Ohio--a metropolis. I can't see shit except the moon and about five stars.

    Do I win something? What's my motivation for pointing this out?

    Also, does anybody want to buy a Celestron Nextar SLT 130 telescope? I've seen as much of the moon as I care to view.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by alien88 ( 218348 )
      How much do you want for the Celestron Nextar SLT 130? What's it come with?
    • Blah. Chicago, I win. About thirty blocks straight south from the heart of downtown, sooo.... no stars for me :(
    • Before selling that scope, you should try doing a bit of planetary observation with it. With a 5", you should have no trouble seeing the rings of Saturn, and some detail in Jupiter's atmosphere (not to mention the Gallilean moons). And all of this should be visible in even heavily light polluted locales.

  • Count from Beijing, China (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Goonie ( 8651 ) * <robert,merkel&benambra,org> on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:24AM (#20833529) Homepage
    I did this exercise repeatedly in Beijing, China, a couple of weeks ago. When the atmospheric pollution was bad, I could only see two stars - though I suppose they may have been planets. This increased radically to three on a windy day where some of the smoke blew away.

  • The solution: burn coal (Score:4, Funny)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:47AM (#20833657)
    Sooty air will block that nasty light pollution. Any light pollution more than just a couple miles from the observatory will be rendered harmless!

  • This demands immediate action! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Loopy ( 41728 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @12:47AM (#20833661) Journal
    This kind of pollution cannot be tolerated. Think of the health of our grandchildren. Damned SUV-drivin' polluters!

    /removes tongue from cheek
  • Pollution...?

    Personally, I stopped using map-lights years ago - is there a way I can claim retro-carbon credits for that...?

  • There's a whole lotta stars around here (Score:3, Funny)

    by yaphadam097 ( 670358 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2007 @01:22AM (#20833803)
    But they all blink...

    Maybe it has something to do with the Navy base to the South, or the other Navy base to the East, or the Air National Guard base to the East, or the regional airport to the North...
  • But isn't this just a really hard way of mapping street lights?

     

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pease1 ( 134187 )
      Good street lights don't contribute that much to light pollution. Bad street lights do. And just not street lights, but all forms of outdoor lighting, from outlandish gas stations that are brighter then operating rooms to car lots.
  • ... and I'm not trying to troll or anything, but is there anything humans do that isn't considered some form of pollution? It seems that all of our advancements have come at the price of some form of pollution. With the number of people on Earth is it even possible for us not to pollute or pollute very little to the point where it has no significant impact on the environment?

    Now I'm fairly ignorant on the subject I'll admit and please, please feel free to correct me, but if everything we do somehow injures
    • Well, the argument from the more rational people and scientists (I'd hope I'm in the category) is that we are always going to pollute - in fact, all animals 'pollute', even if it's a bird crapping over a tree.

      However, the view is that as we seem to have become intelligent and aware enough to know what impact we are having on what is - at least as far as we know - an incredibly unique ecosystem, we should act on this in any way we can. If environment was put before profits, bonuses, high paid city bosses, po
    • It's more or less inevitable that our actions are going to cause some level of pollution the issue is managing the pollution so that it doesn't have a negative impact on our activities. For example the River Thames was at one point horribly polluted to the point it supported very little in the way of wildlife but now by managing the pollution in the river it has been dramatically cleaned up and improved so we still get the benefit from continuing the actions which caused the pollution whilst at the same tim
    • See, here's your problem: Pollution is taken care of by the natural processes for most all of the earth. Humans have caused two problems: (1) there are too many of us by a factor of about 100 (maybe 1000, depending on your ideals) and (2) the ways we have found ways to support that overpopulation generally require stirring up old pollution which has been "processed" already (i.e.: digging stuff up and re-dispersing it).

      In a way it's sort of a vicious cycle - the more people to support, the more intensive w
    • I think the word "pollution" should be reserved for environmental impacts that actually harm, or could potentially harm, people's health. It would be a long stretch to claim that you're less healthy because you can't see as many stars as some other people can.

      Personally, I think this whole light pollution thing that crops up from time to time is crap. If you want to see stars, get in your car and drive away from cities-- no big deal! Why be an ass and try to force everyone to turn off their lights, that the
  • I've been using Clear Sky Clocks [cleardarksky.com] for years. Find a clock near you and then click on "Light pollution map." From there, click on link road map and you can find where good and bad skies are. Have fun.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pease1 ( 134187 )
      Those maps were put together a number of years ago now and haven't been updated. Not to mention the value of actually correlating on-the-ground observed data with the remote sensing/satellite data that was used to create the maps.

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close