• 2 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 30th, 2023

help-circle














  • For optical images you want Sentinel-2 (EU) with 10m Resolution or Landsat 8 (NASA) with 30 m resolution. You can use the Copernicus Open Data Hub and the The USGS earth explorer for download, they offer graphic inferfaces where one can select an area of interest or upload shapefiles.

    There are many more data sources, specialized software and/or APIs for Python for batch downloading etc.

    When you have downloaded the data, you can use different programs for visualizing and georeferencing the images such as QGIS.

    Keep in mind the work with satellite remote sensing data is not trivial and usually requires many postprocessing steps. If you just want to explore the earth surface I would recommend to look for local ortho images from aerial photography. Depending on where you live, this data will be made available for download and/or exploration via a web mapping service (WMS). It is much more detailed and may be more interesting you, and a bit less complicated than satellite data.

    Just to be complete as you asked for satellite data in general: Of course there is much more available than just RGB channels. You can get more band e.g. Near Infrared from Sentinel-2, or cool stuff like RADAR from Sentinel-1, LIDAR from GEDI etc. There are plenty of satellite missions for all your desires.

    For anyone who wants to dive more into these topics, search for satellite remote sensing. You can also find many tutorials for processing this data e.g. using Python or R.


  • gigachad@sh.itjust.workstomemes@lemmy.worldIt seems like a lot...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    That 90% is admittedly going by memory of statistical analysis that I’m now unable to find amongst all the anti-vape misinformation and data that focuses only on how many vape and doesn’t show the age distribution.

    I am not saying you are lying, I know it is impossible to memorize all studies you ever read. On the other hand this makes your 90% pretty useless, as it is not clear what is counted here. You mentioning anti-vape misinformtion seems to me like you could be a bit biased, defending vaping for whatever reason.

    That sounds ridiculously high. The highest I’ve seen for 2018 was 2.9%. There’s no way it went from that to 20% in just two years.

    Ok but that is not how studies work. I am not from the US, but the affiliations of the study I linked seem to be pretty credible:

    Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.

    The “myths debunked” may be an interesting read, but it does not contribute anything useful to the discussion.

    I don’t want to fight and as a non-smoker I am absolutely open to get convinced by you if you can provide some substancial information. However downvoting me is not really a strong argument.