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.'"

Re:

[Brian Gordon]

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

Re:

[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:

[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

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:

[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:

[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 ga

Re:

[Goaway]

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

Re:

[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:

[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 advanci

Re:

[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:

[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 [www.ipcc.ch], here [hm-treasury.gov.uk] and here [garnautreview.org.au]. 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 [realclimate.org].

Paradoxicaly, d

Re:

[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:

[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:

[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....

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:

[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.

Re:

[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:

[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:

[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.

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 a

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 Terr

Re:

[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:

[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

Re:

[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 [youtube.com].

Re:

[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

Re:

[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:

[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 m

Re:

[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

Too late

[symbolset]

The only real answer was pointed out by Robert Malthus [wikipedia.org] 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 tha

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.

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...

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...

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:

[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:

[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!!

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 [estesrockets.com], 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.

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.

What can I say....

[a_generic_name]

Transformers, Robots in da skies!