Robots Fly Over Antarctica

Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have successfully run a series of flights by autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) over Antarctica. These robotic planes have a 2-meter wingspan and weigh 6 kilograms. They are powered by Lithium Ion Polymer (LIPo) battery packs — similar to the ones in your cellphones or laptops. So far, these autonomous UAVs have completed about 20 flights lasting 40 minutes each. These robots can fly over 45 kilometers while taking about 100 measurements per second about the exchange of heat between the lower atmosphere and sea ice. According to one of the scientists, 'the future of atmospheric research will be robotic.'"

Comments

Collecting data

[QuantumG]

Conclusion: the ice is melting.

We knew that already.. we even have a good idea of the rate at which it is melting and how fucked we are going to be as a result.

Now that we know this, can we please do something about it? Or are we just not ready for that yet? Another 20 years of study perhaps?

Can we at least direct some of that study towards solutions?

Re:Collecting data

[Brian Gordon]

Dropping bits of Halley's Comet on Antartica might just do the trick.

Re:Collecting data

[webmaster404]

Conclusion: the ice is melting. We knew that already.. we even have a good idea of the rate at which it is melting and how fucked we are going to be as a result. Now that we know this, can we please do something about it? Or are we just not ready for that yet? Another 20 years of study perhaps?

But we don't know really the root cause. Sure we are quick to point the blame at cars and factories but also farting cows are to blame perhaps even more then us. So really, we can prove that the ice is melting, what we can't prove is what is to blame. There is no point in going 5 steps backwards only to find out that it really wasn't anything we did.

Re:Collecting data

[tirerim]

Well, methane from cows (it actually comes from both ends) is still our fault, since we're the ones raising the cows. It's probably due to a combination of factors, though, not any one thing. But even if it's due to entirely natural processes (say increased solar output), that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it -- having most of our cities underwater won't be much fun whether we caused it or not, and if we can reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that's likely to help. And most of the things we can do to reduce the possible human causes of global warming will have other long term benefits, like cheaper energy and improved air quality.

But the main thing is that if we don't do something quickly, it may be too late. It's like Pascal's Wager -- there are really very few penalties for doing something and being wrong, but there are very harsh penalties for doing nothing and being wrong.

Re:Collecting data

[Goaway]

Yes, we do. Don't project your own ignorance onto others.

Re:Collecting data

[webmaster404]

Then please, give me facts that can prove that we are 100% responsible for climate change, that it would be negative, that it is not a pattern and that we can do something about it, otherwise, as I said, there is no point going 5 steps backwards to gain a -possible- step forwards.

Re:Collecting data

[Matteo522]

Problem is, if you don't understand the root cause and the system well enough, you could make things much worse. Ever solve a bug that seemed pretty straightforward only to cause major data corruption later down the line?

This isn't just an analogy. It has only been until recently that we've recognized global dimming as a real phenomenon that we've pretty much undoubtedly caused ourselves from all the particulates we spew into the atmosphere. So let's say that to solve global warming we drastically cut down on air pollution from cars, factories, and power plants. Seems straightforward, right? Well, that cuts down on atmospheric particulates, which increases the amount of solar energy reaching the earth and causes a net INCREASE in temperature.

So it's not entirely Pascal's wager -- we do have something we could lose by being wrong.

Re:Collecting data

[Anonymous Coward]

Conclusion: the ice is melting. Yeah, it's been doing that for, oh, the past 10 or 20 thousand years. I suspect that melting ice is strongly correlated with the end of an ice age, but I haven't really studied the entire history of the planet Earth to be able to state that unequivocally.

And in news totally unrelated to "anthropogenic global warming", ice caps on Mars are shrinking, too.

Re:Collecting data

[QuantumG]

Maybe I'm just naive but what does the cause matter? If we figure out that it is cows that are causing the ice caps to melt, what are we going to do? Ban cows?

You've identified a problem, fix it. Knowing what causes it would be nice but it is hardly necessary.

Re:Collecting data

[tirerim]

Proof? There is no absolute proof, except in mathematics. Try "proving" that what goes up must come down -- the best you'll be able to do is show that it's always happened in the past. What we have are strong correlations, and fairly easy extrapolations based on current data. But that's good enough, because there's no need to "go five steps backwards". That implies that the only way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is to return to a pre-industrial level of technology. On the contrary, by advancing further forwards we have the chance to protect our way of life at a much more significant level than simply being able to continue burning fossil fuels. It's a choice between standing still and possibly being dragged back if we do nothing, or leaping forward and avoiding the possibility of our downfall.

Re:Collecting data

[QuantumG]

And you're telling me this because?

The house is burning down.

You want to debate the finer points of who is responsible for starting the fire.

I just want someone to put it out.

Re:Collecting data

[dbIII]

The large amounts of carbon dioxide production or average global temperature rises will never be adequate proof for people that want an emotional proof just as evolution is discounted because simply people don't like to be compared to apes. The best thing we can do is improve educational standards so that people will consider that there is more in existance than what they see before them.

Re:Collecting data

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want someone to put it out. And if it's the sun or some other natural cause, wasting the trillions of dollars of economic output necessary to even try to "put it out" on a world where there are still millions of people starving every year (not "hungry" - actually STARVING!) would be irresponsible at best.

Re:Collecting data

[QuantumG]

In case you haven't noticed, the first world doesn't give two shits about the starving children in the third world.

They do, however, care about their own children.

Welcome to human nature.

Re:Collecting data

[LoudMusic]

You've identified a problem, fix it. Knowing what causes it would be nice but it is hardly necessary. You can't be serious, can you?

If you don't combat the cause fixing the problem will never last. You're just smearing putty over a crack in the wall. In another couple of months the putty will dry and fall out of the crack and the crack will grow. You have to level the foundation to make the crack stop.

Re:Collecting data

[QuantumG]

Wow, that's gotta be the best analogy ever. You are aware that people fill cracks right? Even if your suggestion was that we "level the foundation" of the planet, what would that entail? Build a new planet? How about just a new place to live.. like, say, an island in the sky....

Re:Collecting data

[TapeCutter]

"Yes, we do. Don't project your own ignorance onto others."

"Then please, give me facts that can prove that we are 100% responsible for climate change..."

For fun facts and conservative predictions/estimates, check here, here and here. If reading is too much (there are over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers on the subject), grit your teeth and watch or at least listen to Gore's presentation. According to some well known scientists involved with the IPCC, it's a good rendition of the reports.

Paradoxicaly, demanding proof proves your ignorance.

Re:Collecting data

[Anonymous Coward]

And causes a greater increase in warmth LEAVING the earth to space.

gb2/physics101/

Re:Collecting data

[TheNinjaroach]

Well, that cuts down on atmospheric particulates, which increases the amount of solar energy reaching the earth and causes a net INCREASE in temperature. Solar energy is trapped in the atmosphere due to the fact the solar rays come in from the sun and start bouncing all over the place, never getting a chance to escape. Cleaner air would allow for more sunlight to hit the earth surface more directly, but it would also allow for more energy to bounce right off back into space without being trapped.

Re:Collecting data

[Matteo522]

It was a single example of a very complicated system that we clearly don't understand.

Beside, I'm just telling you what I saw on Nova on PBS -- not some right-wing propaganda. The researcher who coined the term global dimming has been researching this for fifty years. With his research and experiments, he came to the conclusion that global dimming, as caused by particulates in the air, currently causes a decrease in temperature. This is bad because it's offsetting global warming caused by greenhouse gases -- that could in fact be much worse than we're estimating... say if our temperature is +2 right now, it could actually be +4 caused by greenhouse gases and -2 caused by global dimming. He's not advocating that we continue polluting the air -- what he's saying is we better be damn careful about how we go about it to make sure we do in fact lower the temperature.

Either way, the point is that it's very complicated and we don't understand it. Your example to me has the striking flaw that, yes, if more sunlight entered more would be able to escape... but since not 100% escapes, any more that enters would cause a net increase in energy trapped. If it never enters in the first place, we don't have to worry about it being trapped.

These aren't Robots!

[Naughty Bob]

They are cool, but let's not take our future overlords' name in vain.

This is just cover for the ANCIENT DRONE WEAPONS

[Joe The Dragon]

This is just cover for the ANCIENT DRONE WEAPONS from the Ancients' Atlantus base in Antarctica.

future headlines need clarification

[moderatorrater]

Please specify in future headlines that these are HUMAN MADE robots. I was halfway done loading my shotgun before I realized this mistake.

Re:future headlines need clarification

[Foobar of Borg]

I was halfway done loading my shotgun before I realized this mistake.

You mean, you don't keep yours loaded all the time? What if a killbot bursts into your home? You can never be too careful, you know!

Re:future headlines need clarification

[chord.wav]

These are imperial drones looking for a rebel base. If you'd shoot them, we would have the entire Empire on our ass by now! Mmm wait a minute. Are you in America? Dude get outta there!!

Re:Keep them away from that strange-looking city

[billstewart]

According to Abdul Alhazred's books, we should really make sure not to fly them over that city with all the pyramids; there are Elder Things that not only was mankind not intended to know, but which get really annoyed if you try...

Nice thought, but ....

[WindBourne]

but the problem is that we have idiots who are trying their best to derail this. Either they do not believe it is occuring, or they believe that it will not matter since JC is coming real soon. Oddly enough, these ppl will kill more ppl this year in the name of Christ, than AQ has killed in their 20 year lifetime in the name of Mohammad.

Solutions? Well, we got into this situation slowly. We are not going to come out of it quickly. No matter. The next president will be one of 3. ALL of them believe in GW and want desperately to do something about it. My bet is that all will push nukes on us (awesome), keep pushing AE (another great thing), rollback GWB's insane ethanol breaks. The interesting question is what else will they do. I find it difficult to believe that we will join Kyoto II while China remains out of it. I am guessing that one or all will get bright and suggest a tax breaks for hybrids AND electric cars (awesome). If dem, then it will need to be made in America (good). I am also guessing that they will consider a carbon tax along with all of the west. The reason is that China is now the number 1 polluter in every arena. China will not join until they are forced to. So, how do we stop this without destroying our own economic base? Create a carbon tax of some sort (or the reverse). The west will be doing this soon. EU is going to push it. Japan will as well. So will the next president. The carbon tax, combined with pushing electric cars, will solve this.

In addition, it will solve Many of America's and EU's problems. AQ, Venezuela, even Iran is because of issues over oil. Once we stop buying from them, then terrorism will greatly diminish.

Re:Nice thought, but ....

[TapeCutter]

A serious global deal is well under way, the China thing is a bit of a red herring, the world is just waiting for Bush to get out of the way.

Re:Nice thought, but ....

[WindBourne]

Well, I agree that the world is waiting for GWB to get out of the way (and yes, he has set back a lot). But China is NOT a red herring. They are building 2-4 new coal plants EACH week. America puts on line 1 a month, if that. We have been stagnate for some time. In fact, the majority of our new energy is coming from AE. With our next president, all 3 will be pushing nukes and AE and will slow or even stop coal plants growth.

China is the problem. They are using the issue of GW to hold the west hostage. In particular, they are pushing for all of the west to turn over our tech for clean air and even nukes to them, FOR FREE. They do not want to buy it. That should not happen. China is now economical positive to the world. They have plenty of surplus euros and dollars. They can afford to buy all of this tech from us, but will not. I suspect that ALL of the world leaders know that. That is why EU is pushing the carbon tax issue. And I believe, though not certain, that all 3 of our candidates support it. While I am obviously oppose to GWB's policies (heck, just check my foe list; nearly all are monster GWB supporters), I also know that GWB is correct on this (even if it is a red herring for him). China must be part of the solution, even if they have to be forced into it.

BTW, China's problems is not limited to CO2. They account for more something like 2/3 of the none-CO2 pollution in the air. That HAS to stop. Roughly, they are exporting not just goods, but their health issues as well.

Re:Nice thought, but ....

[TapeCutter]

"China's problems is not limited to CO2."

Neither is the rest of the planet.

"China must be part of the solution"

I encourage you to research the UN's prefered plan and what China is willing to sign up to circa 2009. The point of the video is that the US (and until recently we Aussies) have been the last to agree to ANYTHING.

Re:Nice thought, but ....

[WindBourne]

Neither is the rest of the planet.
True, but the problem is that China now accounts for the vast majority of pollution. They refuse to use any clean tech to clean up their pollution. It is not just their coal plants that have this issue. It is nearly all of their plants that pollute heavily. It has been a while since I saw the stats (had a GF that researched this for NPS), but depending on the pollutant, china has from 10% to 50% of what is falling on the Colorado Rocky Mountains. That is HUGE. Even the majority of the 3rd world countries are trying to clean up their problems.

China makes lots of promises and then ties them to other conditions. They recently tied coming to the table with the west giving them technology. Wrong answer. I have looked over the UN's plan, and it is bunk. It counts on the west basically giving away everything, while allowing China (as well as other countries such as India) being allowed to increase their pollution. Wrong approach. Now, is the time to stop China and India and move them to Nukes and AE. India is trying to get past its politics, and probably will, but it will be buying a number of nuke power plants once it does. That will make a big difference for India as well as the world. China has no intention of doing that. They will hold the world hostage unless the technology is given to them.

BTW, skip the video. Just look at the situation. Yes, GWB is stalling, and yet, we are not increasing our pollution levels on a daily basis. The one to be afraid of, is the country that is adding 500MW/1GW of DIRTY coal plants a week.

Re:Nice thought, but ....

[TapeCutter]

Please give some sources for your claims, in particular "Wrong answer. I have looked over the UN's plan, and it is bunk. It counts on the west basically giving away everything, while allowing China (as well as other countries such as India) being allowed to increase their pollution.". Just a link to the plan you claim to have 'looked over' would do.

"India is trying to get past its politics, and probably will, but it will be buying a number of nuke power plants once it does."

I think you are refering to a plan hatched by GWB and our ex PM John Howard, that plan was an attempt to derail the UN talks and monopolize the nuclear fuel cycle, it seems to have failed miserably.

"Just look at the situation."

Good advice. Get back to me when you find something that supports your assertions.

Re:This is just cover for the ANCIENT DRONE WEAPON

[jamstar7]

Naw, these are human-made drones. TOTALLY ineffective against the forces of Anubis.

We're so screwed...

In other news:

[melikamp]

Penguins flying over mobile platforms. Could these be related?

Robot? Really?

[Fishbulb]

I have a hard tim e calling this a robot. Maybe it's just all those years of model rockets, R/C doohickeys, and Lego Technics sets that let you program them using straight gear segments on a flat card, but giving something a pre-programmed flight path just doesn't qualify as "robot" to me. More like "fancy R/C plane".

Hell, even my PT 109 R/C boat had "programmable" movement patterns if you didn't outfit it with R/C gear.

You almost had me

[Project2501a]

> In addition, it will solve Many of America's and EU's problems. AQ, Venezuela, even Iran
> is because of issues over oil. Once we stop buying from them, then terrorism will greatly diminish.

What kind terrorism are you talking about? What kind of terrorism did Venezuela engage in? And how stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela (and therefore drilling for oil in the Artic Circle as Junior said he wanted to do), will stop Al Qaida or Iran?

Also in your definition, do you mean State Terrorism as applied from Western States to the rest of the world? Because if you don't you're forgetting that the US has been convicted by the UN over and over for being a state engaging in acts of terrorism.

Re:You almost had me

[ckaminski]

[cite requested]

    For a permanent member of the UN Security council to be convicted of acts of terrorism and not show up in even a rudimentary google search shocks me...

    But I'm willing to be educated and proven wrong.

Re:You almost had me

[WindBourne]

Why has America been engaged in terrorism?
Because we either were chasing bad guys that we had made (noreiga, Bin Ladin), had commitments to partners (vietnam was due to france; Eisenhower felt close to france due to WWII) or because we are chasing resources (iraq). Bin ladin was made by us, and is funded by us, indirectly. Yes, I am very aware of this. And I believe that it is in general, US chasing resources that make this happen. In particular, the majority has been oil. It needs to stop.

Of course, are we the only ones? Nope. England, Germany, france, Russia, and esp. china have their hands everywhere. Roughly the rich countries play the most with other nations. When you speak of our terrorism it is the same all over, and it all needs to stop. BTW, I do believe that our best way to stop this is to move off oil, but also to persue resources on asteroids. The reason that I say that, is because China it trying hard to corner and control resources through external puppets. They are backing a large number of dictators who can control their nations. The west has for decades made it a policy to try and not deal with these kind of ppl. China is simply funding them to keep them in place. By persuing asteroids and finding large amounts of rare minerals, we can kill off this kind of monopolies.

Venezuela. Ah yes. I have to laugh that you even imply that they are not. The are DIRECTLY backing communist terrorist against Columbia. They were caught sending money into other countries election (check out the recent Venezuelan playboy). They have found money flowing from them to iraq, and it appears to be AQ that it is going to (though I note that it could also be local iraqis who are simply fighting us; IOW, we do not know exactly who it is going to). Venezuela is now as dirty we were in the 70's and 80's (nixon and reagan had their hand in EVERYTHING, which is why W is doing the same).

A hypothetical

[TapeCutter]

Your arse is on fire, the first thing you do is...

A. Put it out.
B. Call in forensics.
C. Order some marshmellows.
D. Nothing.

Re:A hypothetical

[tbannist]

You forgot:

E) Form a comittee to investigate why your arse is on fire
F) Conclude that the fire couldn't possibly be man-made and therefore decide not to interfere in the natural burning process.

RTFA

[kellyb9]

You know, this is one of those rare occasions on /. where I choose not to read the article, and instead, let my imagination run wild.

Run free imagination, but watch out for flying robots.

Re:Robot? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Since when did anything pre-programmed or RC become classified as a robot? I'm reading more and more about robot this and military robot that, and most of the time the machines are RC and have zero autonomy. Unmanned or RC machine would be a better term. Robot implies autonomous capabilities and behaviour.

What can I say....

[a_generic_name]

Transformers, Robots in da skies!

Too late

[symbolset]

The only real answer was pointed out by Robert Malthus in 1800. The population growth was exceeding the earth's capacity to support it. Our culture had overwhelmed the capacity of our petri dish. We lacked the will to solve the problem then and we lack it now.

Often the best solution to a social ill is to do nothing. Most things work themselves out in time. Ultimately it's true for this problem too.

In this case humans lack the ability to make the Earth uninhabitable. We can only mess it up enough that the climate changes so that habitable zones move a bit toward the poles. The poles will be habitable for thousands of years after the last carbon based fuel is extracted and burned. The oceans will rise 50' or so if not in my lifetime then in my daughter's or in the lifetime of her kids. Eventually it will work itself out and the world's population will stabilize somewhere around 250 million. Of course between now and then there will be some unpleasantness. People who refuse to move inland at a rate of 1 meter per week or to move north at a rate of 1 meter per year will probably die. Oh, and there will probably be some food shortages if the population grows as expected faster than the land in norther climes becomes arable. People will have to eat lower on the food chain. There will be war.

If we attempt to alter the climate with our technology we will only aggravate the situation. Current proposals for altering the planetary albedo also involve turning the oceans acidic, which would be very bad.