Never say a failed science experiment is a true failure. It might just come back and, well, recycle itself.
How's that for energy conservation?
Using repurposed data from an old Apollo 15 experiment, a recent University of Michigan study suggested that the perfect place to monitor Earth's climate system would be the surface of the moon. Moreover, the study calls for an international effort to put such technology to study climate change.
This is great news. Why? Not because it's another scientific advancement (we all love those). But because it could settle, once and for all, the perceived debate of the existence -- and extent -- of Earth's climate crisis.
But at the same time, it's empty news, because as much as scientists can pelt the country with data supporting global warming and climate change, everyone else is too busy buying air conditioners.
Now, I must have been the last person on Earth to see An Inconvenient Truth (this weekend, in a half-hearted attempt to justify to myself the unusually scorching temperatures that have fallen over my little corner of the U.S.). And take from it what you will. But it seems to me that Al Gore's signature slide show is starting to change the way people think about why it's so damn hot outside in May.
So when a scientist suggests a new way to measure the data that Al Gore has been peddling for so long, I can see why it could be hard to get even the environmental crowd on board. Why do we need to spend money proving what has been already proven? Shouldn't we just put the money toward the solution?
Well, it shouldn't be that black and white (hot and cold?). In the documentary, Gore mentions that that famous, first full-frontal photograph of Earth, "Earth Rise," changed the way humans perceived the planet. You could say that the vivid photo gives us the same kind of comprehensive perspective as hidden camera footage gives the fashion victim on TLC's What Not To Wear.
This is the proper way we need to measure the Earth: As a whole, but in a vacuum, much like many experiments are performed.
We need one less variable.
So why wouldn't some lunar data capture do the trick? This moon-based monitoring technology would show us what goes in and what comes out, unsullied by the atmosphere, hydrosphere or biosphere. It could piece together the local findings of satellites to show us that we've got a fever whether or not we're standing in the sun.
In other words, it should put to rest the grumblings of a contingent that have effectively reframed an ironclad issue. Plus, we've gotta use that dusty moon for something other than an excuse to sell tourists shiny packs of freeze-dried food.
But what about money, you say? The self-proclaimed geeks over at Slashdot are in a tiff over the hypothetical price tag on such a proposal, and the jury's still out on an estimate.
But though this is probably one more idea destined to be left off the political to-do list, it's a great way to justify how much funding should go toward fixing the Earth -- and defining the point when it's actually fixed.
I say bring on the technology and get the whole picture. As one Slashdotter so aptly put it, if you can't measure success, how do you know it works?