OK, so you've got a three-word summary of some hyperbole with Dumbo, the Flying Elephant. How are you going to deal with the real scientific constraints on the physics of combining real measurement technologies and "mashing stuff together"?
You need to remember that imaging instruments integrate radiances with spectral responses and Point Spread Function weighted averages over the FOV of whatever the instrument was looking at - and that's just the instantaneous (L1 measurement). If you do orthorectification, you've got variations in the uncertainties across the image where the parts of the image where you've increased the resolving power (by putting interpolated points closer together) and have also increased the noise from the orthorectification process that acts as a noise multiplier. Next, you've got stuff like cloud identification (and rejection or acceptance) - which depends on spectral response, solar illumination (during the day) and temperature and cloud property stuff during the night - and finally, you've got temporal interpolation (not just creating an average through emission driven by solar illumination during the day and IR cooling at night. Where (the hel)l is the physics that deals with this stuff? If you do get some statistical stuff, why should anyone believe it contributes to our understanding of climate change? I won't vote, but you can think of this as my input to your scientific conscience. Bruce B. On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hey Guys, > > I proposed a talk for NASA and Big Data at the Hadoop Summit: > > http://hadoopsummit2013.uservoice.com/forums/196822-future-of-apache-hadoop > /suggestions/3733470-nasa-science-and-technology-for-big-data-junkies- > > > If you still have votes, and would like to support my talk, I'd certainly > appreciate it! > > Thank you for considering. > > Cheers, > Chris Mattmann > Vote Herder > >
