Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

Reply
Thread Tools

lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

 
 
maxsilverstar@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2006
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:54:25 -0800, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>No one answered my question on what is the most important
>greenhouse gas by a factor of about 8 over all other terrestrial
>greenhouse gases?
>

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the 'most important'. Certainly, methane
is about 10 times more effective at trapping solar heat than is CO2, but
currently we release far less methane than CO2 into the atmosphere. Further,
water vapor, undoubtedly because of its abundance, currently traps more heat
than CO2 does. Do you see why I'm not certain what you are asking?

Back to methane - there are vast amounts of it trapped in the permafrost in the
Lake Baikal region. Should all of that permafrost thaw (as it appears likely it
will) and release the currently bound methane to the atmosphere the consequences
to global warming will be staggering. That alone might be enough to tip the
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to beyond the point where
anything we can do might save us. It seems that far from being adherents of the
Chicken Little approach, our specialists have been overly cautious in their
estimates of the current and increasing danger to us from global warming. It is
certainly fact that our planet is warming rapidly, even more rapidly than first
estimated. And it is also certain that the consequences to all of us are even
more dire than initially predicted.

Partly to bring this back on topic, and also to provide a graphic illustration
for those who stubbornly refuse to believe the planet is warming rapidly, there
is an interesting project involving photographs of the glaciers in Glacier
National Park (in the US state of Montana), some taken near the beginning of the
previous century and others made more recently. Some of these are available at
the USGS Web site, and provide stark illustration of the ongoing effect of
planetary warming. The link below is to the Grinnell Gallery of some of these
photos.
http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/grinnell.htm

There is much more equally valuable information available on the site. Surfing
around within it is well worth the time of anyone seeking a better understanding
of what el Busho and cronies have repeatedly called 'junk science'.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2006
J. Clarke wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:01:16 +0200, Toni Nikkanen wrote:
>
>>"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>>So you're saying that burning wood doesn't produce CO2? If not then what
>>>are you saying?
>>>Humans have had fire for half a million years and have been producing CO2
>>>with it the whole time. Why is it that all of a sudden right now we need
>>>to Do Something?

>>
>>I have no data to give you but I suspect that forest fires caused a lot more
>>CO2 500,000 years ago than humans using fire did. Relatively speaking, a bunch
>>of humans huddling over a campfire don't a greenhouse effect make.

>
> And yet that's all we are now is "a bunch of humans huddling over a
> campfire". How many humans and how many campfires does it take before you
> have a greenhouse effect and on what information do you base this
> contention?


The human population as exponentially increased, and the amount
of fuel burning is increasing every year. A few hundred
years ago and longer, the fuel use was negligible compared to
today's industrial age. The amount of fuel used is well
cataloged by country. e.g. see:
United States Energy and World Energy
Production and Consumption Statistics
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html

Some searches will find web sites that show other historical
records.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2006
J. Clarke wrote:

> It is clear to me that you have a script on this topic and nothing on
> Earth is going to divert you from that script, so there is no point in
> attempting to discuss the matter further.


This started when smb called global change research junk science.
I objected. You may have noted from my other posts that
I don't agree with all global change research, but not that
it is junk science; rather it is excellent and evolving
science, and still has a ways to go. But that doesn't mean
we haven't learned some very important things along the way,
or that some things haven't become clear. I'll elaborate on this
in other responses I'll shortly post.

> And why do you keep going off about prices? The price of fuel has zip all
> to do with climate.


In my experience, those opposing the message of global change
seem to have their objection based on economic reasons.
E.g. doing something will cost that person money, or
harm "the economy." I agree, prices of fuel has zip to
do with climate, but everything to do with changing actions
that could change man's effect on climate.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2006
J. Clarke wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:21:33 -0800, Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark) wrote:
>
>>J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:54:25 -0800, Roger N. Clark (change username to
>>>rnclark) wrote:
>>>
>>>>smb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Regarding what credible scientists may say, it's still not conclusive.
>>>>>Maybe the earth is warming from a combination of natural and human
>>>>>effects. Maybe it isn't. There are models and predictions, but there
>>>>>is no proof.
>>>>
>>>>There is no proof that the theory of gravity is correct either.
>>>>Gravity exists. We use gravity theory to navigate spacecraft
>>>>all over the solar system with amazing precision. But
>>>>there is no proof. But the theory works well enough to
>>>>explain all our needs with impressive precision.
>>>
>>>Actually there is a great deal of proof that the equations describing
>>>gravitation are in fact correct to an accuracy useful for engineering and
>>>navigational purposes.

>>
>>Not proof. Good evidence, but not proof.

>
> You're not very good at reading what others wrote before you engage
> your script, are you? There is absolute proof that they are good enough
> for engineering and navigation. This is not the same as there being proof
> that the assumptions on which they are based are correct and in fact the
> equations used for engineering and navigation are not only an
> approximation but they are known to be an approximation to a more accurate
> model and the degree of their error is known.


Actually that is not the case. There are problems surfacing with
spacecraft navigation that remain unexplained. For example,
google: pioneer anomaly NASA
and see articles like:
The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would Probe Strange Puzzle
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_041018.html

There have been scientific conferences on the subject.

Then google: speed of gravity
and see more strange things.

>>>>The evidence for accelerated global warming is growing every year. The
>>>>data are "shouting louder and louder." There is no proof in most
>>>>science. But there are models and predictions that have very high
>>>>probability of being correct.
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, but there are no equations for climatological analysis that
>>>have been verified with the degree of thoroughness for which those
>>>describing gravitation have been verified. If you press one of these
>>>climatologists you'll find that his model at best accurately described
>>>the last hundred years or so, and that he has never tested it over the
>>>time frame of a full glaciation cycle. And absent that the model is
>>>missing far too much to be useful as anything but a laboratory
>>>exercise.

>>
>>Wrong. There are many fundamental physics equations used. e.g. see:
>>Context: How does a climate model work?
>>http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/Nr..._work_5iy.html

>
> Roger, you don't know enough to understand the problem if you think that
> using "fundamental physics equations" guarantees an accurate solution.
> But the fact that your knowledge of mathematical physics is at a level
> where a site such as that will impress you says much.


I gave you a link to show simple equations. My field is
planetary science and I do radiative transfer calculations
routinely in my work. I can give references to
more rigorous equations regarding climate models, but unless
you have membership in the various societies, you'll likely
find you have to pay $30 per article (something I think is
very bad for scientific research in general and bad for public
access to information largely funded by public dollars).

Here is one reference that is online:

Clark, R. N., Chapter 1: Spectroscopy of Rocks and Minerals,
and Principles of Spectroscopy, in Manual of Remote Sensing,
Volume 3, Remote Sensing for the Earth Sciences,
(A.N. Rencz, ed.) John Wiley and Sons, New York, p 3- 58, 1999.

For equations of radiative transfer theory, see this section:
http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/PAPERS.re...tml#section7.1
The Chandrasekhar equations provides the fundamental radiative transfer
theory for planetary atmospheres, stellar atmospheres, and
light interacting with solids, including planetary surfaces.
The Chandrasekhar H-functions are integral equations (the integrals
are not shown because "everyone" in the field knows what they are).

These equations and the theory are not perfect but do a very good job.

Look at Figure 3b to see the infrared transmission of the earth's
atmosphere and with CO2 doubled. Then note the figure caption which
describes what most of the absorption is due to.

>>>>There are no models using the vast arrays of data from multiple
>>>>sources, that I'm aware of, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
>>>>that indicates that all the CO2 and other pollution we put into our
>>>>environment do not have an effect. Please cite peer reviewed science
>>>>papers that indicate your position has merit.
>>>
>>>Have an effect is one thing. Knowing exactly what that effect is and
>>>what will happen if we change the production rate is quite another.

>>
>>see above web site.

>
> Oh, GAWD. Roger, you've been sold a bill of goods if you are taking your
> information from that web site.


You can easily search for more comprehensive science articles and
pay the dollars to access those articles.

>>>>>CO2 is a well documented greenhouse gas. We have direct measurements
>>>>>of
>>>>its effects on the Earth, Venus and Mars. Pumping CO2 into the
>>>>atmosphere will have an effect.
>>>
>>>We have direct measurements of its effect on Venus and Mars? So how
>>>long have we been measuring CO2 concentrations on Venus and Mars?

>>
>>For decades.

>
> For decades? And how exactly have we been doing this?
>
>>The concepts in CO2 greenhouse gas effects came out of
>>studying Venus several decades ago. There are multiple ways the CO2 can
>>be measured: from earth based telescopes using infrared spectroscopy.
>>The absorption line profiles of multiple lines are used to derive the
>>gas abundance, temperature and pressure as a function of altitude. Then
>>spacecraft directly sample the atmospheric components.

>
> Again you're oversimplifying some complex research. You're asserting that
> studying mars and venus is telling us how changes in carbon dioxide levels
> affect temperature. To do that we would need to be monitoring changes in
> those levels on Mars and Venus and measuring temperatures. There is no
> program in place to do that and no method by which the surface
> temperature of Venus may be measured other than by direct observation. So
> again you're oversimplifying complex research. Venus is hot, venuse has a
> lot of carbon dioxide, therefore carbon dioxide is bad seems to be your
> logic.


Common issues with complex models are how they behave as variables
get extended. A good model will predict accurately those unusual
conditions. Including Venus, Mars and Titan into climate models
helps validate those models over larger ranges of conditions.
And guess what, they are working and predicting what we observe
on those bodies. The same basic radiative transfer equations are
also used in modeling stellar atmospheres.

Concerning measuring the surface temperature of Venus, yes it
is being done with infrared spectroscopy. For example, one paper
on which I am a co-author:

Baines, K.H., G. Bellucci, J.P. Bebring, R.H. Brown, E. Bussoletti,
F. Capaccioni, R. Cerroni. R.N. Clark, A. Coradini, D.P. Cruikshank,
P. Drossart, V. Formisano, R. Jauman, Y. Langevin, D.L. Matson,
T.B. McCord, V. Mennella, R.M. Nelson, P.D. Nicholson, B. Sicardy,
C. Sotin, G.B. Hansen, J.J. Aiello, and S. Amici (the Cassini
VIMS team), 2000, Detection of sub-micron radiation from the
surface of Venus by the Cassini/VIMS: Icarus, 148, 307-311.

(In case you don't understand the title, sub-micron radiation
refers to heat from the surface at wavelengths less than 1-micron,
because the surface is so hot.)

References in that paper illustrate the historical work. At the
American Geophysical Union meeting earlier this month in San
Francisco, new maps of Venus' surface were presented using
near infrared wavelengths, directly sensing the heat from
Venus' surface.

>>>>No one answered my question on what is the most important greenhouse
>>>>gas by a factor of about 8 over all other terrestrial greenhouse gases?
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, but this is not a test.

>>
>>A simple answer would establish you know something about greenhouse
>>gases. It is also a clue to the problems with climate models in my (and
>>a number of other scientists) opinions.

>
> So you admit that there is a problem with climate models but you are going
> to rush off into precipitate political action based on them regardless.


Yes, there are problems with climate models. No model is perfect,
not any theory (although Einstein was pretty certain of his, and
it seems so far Relativity may be an exception).
But just because a model and theory is not perfect does not
mean that it is not useful. If you didn't believe in any
theory, you couldn't believe that anything in the world would work,
including starting your car, or turning on a light.


>>Yep, it might be a problem when the solar flux drops and we go into
>>another mini ice age, which some solar scientists say could start in
>>about 10 years. Then we'll see everyone yelling to pump more CO2 into
>>the atmosphere to keep us warm!

>
> This is assuming that the solar flux dropping is the cause of ice ages,


No, it may have yet another solar cycle on the vast scheme of things.

> which is again something that is not proven, it's speculation, and the
> models that purport to "prove" it doen't correlate well with the observed
> data. And again you're ignoring that ice core, which shows that we
> _should_ be well into a period of deep glaciation by now, not a "mini ice
> age" but the real deal. Something is stopping it and if that something
> isn't human activity then something has changed in the climate and if that
> something isn't human activity then we don't have a clue what it is or
> where it's going to go.


We do have data on multiple solar cycles. There is an
11-year sunspot cycle, 22-year cycle, then longer cycles that
amount to several hundred years (e.g. see Maunder minimum).
There are whole books written on this subject, and many science
papers. A quick google search will show many, e.g. a 188-year
cycle: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606426

>>You might detect I don't hold all of global climate models as perfect.
>>They have multiple problems. But independent of the models are the
>>data. And the data are indicating profound influences on the planet by
>>people that should not be ignored.

>
> The problem with "the data" is that absent a model you don't know what the
> data is telling you. And if you have the wrong model then the data is
> telling you the wrong thing.


Often a simple model tells you the majority of what you need to know.
For example, everyone can form a model of sunrise and sunset times
by observing for a few years: the sun rises earlier in summer than in
winter. If you develop a complex math model for describing the
times of sunrise and sunset using orbital mechanics, you'll
find it doesn't work precisely. The reason is that atmospheric
refraction changes the apparent position of the sun, changing the
time of sunrise. To get very precise, you need temperature,
pressure, and atmospheric composition (water is quite variable)
over the line of site for each sunrise and sunset, a very difficult
set of measurements to obtain and feed real time into your model
to get the exact time the sun hits the horizon. Then throw
in a mountain too. But for the basics, you don't need all that,
and we live our lives each day knowing the simple model of
the approximate time the sun rises is good enough.

Same with climate models. The models are well refined enough,
and the data clear enough to know the effects happening.
The trends are clear.

> By going with "the data" you are in fact making up your own model,


No.

> apparently a linear extrapolation beyond the range of validity of the data,


No. As I stated above, Mars, Venus, and Titan provide outer
bounds way beyond earth parameters that help show the models
work over wide ranges of conditions. And stellar atmospheres too!

> and assuming that that model is valid. This is always a risk in science
> and in engineering. Any engineer with any real experience has gotten
> burned this way at least once.


We now have decades of development of climate science, by
many scientists all over the world. The competition for improvement
is fierce. One thing the public seems to not understand about
scientists: they are brutal on each others theories. One
can become famous by ripping apart someones else's models and theories
and putting your own out front. And it is that competition
that makes science so great and with time, and so robust, even though
it is never perfect. The major journals science and nature
publish mostly the top discoveries, many of which are finding
some previous model/prediction/theory inadequate and/or wrong.

The climate literature has refined beyond the basics and is
providing a consistent picture. And the data are becoming
clearer too, as the effects become stronger.

Roger

 
Reply With Quote
 
smb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2006
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:13:43 -0800, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> It is clear to me that you have a script on this topic and nothing on
>> Earth is going to divert you from that script, so there is no point in
>> attempting to discuss the matter further.

>
>This started when smb called global change research junk science.
>I objected. You may have noted from my other posts that
>I don't agree with all global change research, but not that
>it is junk science; rather it is excellent and evolving
>science, and still has a ways to go. But that doesn't mean
>we haven't learned some very important things along the way,
>or that some things haven't become clear. I'll elaborate on this
>in other responses I'll shortly post.


Some aspects of "global change research" is indeed junk science,
particulary when politicians use incomplete data to draw conclusions
that help them get elected. There's also some good science behind it,
but nothing there that would force people to make the kinds of radical
changes in their lives that would be required to reverse the effects
of human-caused climate change, if that really exists.



>> And why do you keep going off about prices? The price of fuel has zip all
>> to do with climate.

>
>In my experience, those opposing the message of global change
>seem to have their objection based on economic reasons.
>E.g. doing something will cost that person money, or
>harm "the economy." I agree, prices of fuel has zip to
>do with climate, but everything to do with changing actions
>that could change man's effect on climate.


"Economic Reasons" mean much more than paying more for gasoline at the
pump. The kinds of economic changes required by a knee-jerk reaction
to global warming would put entire countries into economic tailspin.
The politics of global warming are such that the developing nations
would be quite happy to see the industrial nations self-destruct from
economic depression while they take a more prominent position in the
world.

Again, what are YOU willing to sacrifice to reverse global warming if
the doomsayers are correct? Your job? Your car? Your house? Your
easy access to inexpensive food? Your cameras? Your freedom to
travel anywhere in the world you choose? How about all of the above
for every other citizen?

Steve





>
>Roger

 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2006
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:13:43 -0800, Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark) wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> It is clear to me that you have a script on this topic and nothing on
>> Earth is going to divert you from that script, so there is no point in
>> attempting to discuss the matter further.

>
> This started when smb called global change research junk science.
> I objected. You may have noted from my other posts that
> I don't agree with all global change research, but not that
> it is junk science; rather it is excellent and evolving
> science, and still has a ways to go. But that doesn't mean
> we haven't learned some very important things along the way,
> or that some things haven't become clear. I'll elaborate on this
> in other responses I'll shortly post.


When it stops evolving, _then_ it's time to start acting on the results.

>> And why do you keep going off about prices? The price of fuel has zip
>> all to do with climate.

>
> In my experience, those opposing the message of global change seem to
> have their objection based on economic reasons. E.g. doing something
> will cost that person money, or harm "the economy." I agree, prices of
> fuel has zip to do with climate, but everything to do with changing
> actions that could change man's effect on climate.


Well perhaps if you actually responded to what I wrote instead of giving
me canned answers that go off on irrelevant tangents I might think that
you were conversing instead of preaching.

> Roger


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2006
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:05:16 -0800, Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark) wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:01:16 +0200, Toni Nikkanen wrote:
>>
>>>"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>>So you're saying that burning wood doesn't produce CO2? If not then what
>>>>are you saying?
>>>>Humans have had fire for half a million years and have been producing CO2
>>>>with it the whole time. Why is it that all of a sudden right now we need
>>>>to Do Something?
>>>
>>>I have no data to give you but I suspect that forest fires caused a lot more
>>>CO2 500,000 years ago than humans using fire did. Relatively speaking, a bunch
>>>of humans huddling over a campfire don't a greenhouse effect make.

>>
>> And yet that's all we are now is "a bunch of humans huddling over a
>> campfire". How many humans and how many campfires does it take before you
>> have a greenhouse effect and on what information do you base this
>> contention?

>
> The human population as exponentially increased, and the amount
> of fuel burning is increasing every year. A few hundred
> years ago and longer, the fuel use was negligible compared to
> today's industrial age. The amount of fuel used is well
> cataloged by country. e.g. see:
> United States Energy and World Energy
> Production and Consumption Statistics
> http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html
>
> Some searches will find web sites that show other historical
> records.


You have records that go back 10,000 years? Do tell.



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2006
J. Clarke wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:05:16 -0800, Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark) wrote:
>>The human population as exponentially increased, and the amount
>>of fuel burning is increasing every year. A few hundred
>>years ago and longer, the fuel use was negligible compared to
>>today's industrial age. The amount of fuel used is well
>>cataloged by country. e.g. see:
>> United States Energy and World Energy
>> Production and Consumption Statistics
>> http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html
>>
>>Some searches will find web sites that show other historical
>>records.

>
> You have records that go back 10,000 years? Do tell.


There are quite reasonable estimates, and once you go back
far enough, the numbers are so low as to be insignificant,
especially considering people's impact on the global
environment. For example, with current population of
6 billion people, around 1 AD it was only about 150
million, or 40 times less. Thus even if the industrial
output per capita were the same as today, the impact
would be 1/40 of today's impact on the environment.
And because industrial output was much less, the impact
would be much less. So 10,000 years ago the population
is negligible compared to today's billions.
And current population is doubling about every 58 years.
Kinda scary if you want to get out by yourself to do
some photography .

Here is a cool website showing the population growth
as a function of time on a world map:
http://www.missouri.edu/~grcjh/population.html

Roger

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2006
smb wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:54:25 -0800, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>smb wrote:
>>
>>>Regarding what credible scientists may say, it's still not conclusive.
>>>Maybe the earth is warming from a combination of natural and human
>>>effects. Maybe it isn't. There are models and predictions, but there
>>>is no proof.

>>
>>There is no proof that the theory of gravity is correct either.
>>Gravity exists. We use gravity theory to navigate spacecraft
>>all over the solar system with amazing precision. But
>>there is no proof. But the theory works well enough to
>>explain all our needs with impressive precision.

>
> Oh, please.... there is much more evidence of gravity than there is
> of human-caused global warming. The reason that we can navigate with
> gravity is because it is so predictable even if we don't understand
> the mechanism behind it. Global warming is still speculation and
> open to debate. Don't forget, peer-reviewed scientists were warning
> us of global cooling not long ago.


The only speculation is by those denying warming is real. The
evidence is overwhelming that the earth is warming, and from
multiple lines of evidence. The controversy is really what fraction
of that warming is caused by people and what proportion of each
cause is contributing to the total effect.

>>The evidence for accelerated global warming is growing
>>every year. The data are "shouting louder and louder."
>>There is no proof in most science. But there are models
>>and predictions that have very high probability of being
>>correct.
>>
>>There are no models using the vast arrays of data from multiple
>>sources, that I'm aware of, in the peer-reviewed
>>scientific literature that indicates that all the CO2 and
>>other pollution we put into our environment do not
>>have an effect. Please cite peer reviewed science papers
>>that indicate your position has merit.

>
> Peer reviewed just means that others with similar opinions agree.


You apparently don't understand the scientific process. It is certainly
true that a bad paper can be published, or papers with mistakes,
but it is also interesting to see the rapid response corrections
and counter papers published. Scientists make their careers on
being correct, and seem to delight in ripping someone else's
work apart, in order to become king of the nerd hill for a while.
It is a system that works well. Much like the back and forth
discussions in these newsgroups, science discussions are played
out in the scientific literature in the form of letters to the
editor, gray literature (e.g. institution publications), peer-reviewed
journals, and more recently web sites. Until web sites, this
interaction took months to years in the paper publication
process.

> Please cite conclusive proof that what you say is true. Otherwise it
> is all a matter of speculation and models that depend on many
> variables.


There will never be conclusive proof in some people eyes.
The question is what constitutes enough evidence to convince
you or me, or someone else?

> It's interesting that some scientists are now stepping back from their
> original projections. My guess is that 20 years from now scientists
> may be looking back and discussing in peer-reviewed journals how the
> global warming scare was mostly hot air. They changed their minds
> about global cooling, why not this also?


This is a great example of the scientific process. Some scientists
came out and said the earth would suffer global cooling.
But others stepped in and analyzed more data and refined the
models and found those scientists were wrong. That happened
decades ago. Since then more data, more research, more refined
models, and the answer keeps coming up the same:
global warming is happening and we are getting refined data
and answers to determine the causes of that warming.
Initially, some scientists said it was all due to people.
Others stepped in and should that was not the best answer and
showed the sun is varying and contributing to the warming.
(Did you know Mars' polar caps are also shrinking?).
So the scientific process is working very well indeed.
Decades of research are overwhelmingly point to warming.
Evidence is becoming clearer that a portion of that warming
is due to people. What the exact fraction is is what
is currently being discussed the scientific literature.

>>CO2 is a well documented greenhouse gas. We have direct
>>measurements of its effects on the Earth, Venus and Mars.
>>Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have an effect.
>>
>>No one answered my question on what is the most important
>>greenhouse gas by a factor of about 8 over all other terrestrial
>>greenhouse gases?

>
> Well, actually I answered your question, if you bothered to look. The
> most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. The effects of
> CO2 are minor by comparison.


Excellent! Correct.

> We could double the amount of CO2 we
> put in the atmosphere and it would have a relatively minor effect on
> global temperatures. Some scientists have determined that the total
> effect of CO2 on the rise in global temperatures since the time of the
> industrial revolution is indeed quite small.
>
> http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.ed...ations-of-co2/


This is an interesting read and raises interesting issues. But I note
you are focusing on CO2 and as outlined in the above link, there
are numerous sources causing the warming. Then also notice, no one
is talking about whether warming exists or not, but the relative
contributions of each source.

It is also of interest to note in the above web exchange that
there is little discussion of water vapor, the gas causing the
most warming. It is ignored because it "is not a well mixed
gas." Another reason is that it is so variable and there
are no good measurements of it in the historical record. That
makes it difficult to include in the models. Hmmm....

> What about that big continuous nuclear explosion in the sky that we
> call the sun? Perhaps that is the biggest factor by far in the mean
> temperature of the planet... don't you think so?


Certainly if there was no sun, we would all freeze, and certainly
the sun is the major cause of warming. The changing sun is now
pretty well established, and is being precisely measured and
included in models.

>>I hope you don't live in Florida when the polar ice caps
>>melt! Get out your scuba gear!

>
> If you actually believe that will happen in our lifetimes, if at all,
> you probably also think that "The Day After Tomorrow" was a
> documentary.


"The Day After Tomorrow" was really bad in my opinion.
The freezing thing was totally absurd.

>>>>Next trip to Alaska, I might try and visit some of the
>>>>glaciers I photographed in the 1990s to see how they have
>>>>changed.
>>>
>>>When you go, I'll bet you'll find they either shrunk, grew or stayed
>>>the same. We live on a dynamic planet.

>>
>>http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html.
>>Glacier net loss from 1961 to present: about 6,000 cubic kilometers!

>
> Right, the planet is dymamic, as I said.
>
> The bigger question is, what are YOU going to do about it? If this
> rapid and drastic change is indeed the result of man's activities over
> the past century, then how do you intend to put the brakes on it?


1) education.
2) I do make fundamental measurements on material properties.
A fundamental parameter in the heat balance equation is the
albedo (reflected) of the earth's surface. For any spot
on the earth, that albedo changes as a function of incident light.
Climate models need to include this.

> Do
> you really think that curbside recycling or taking mass transportation
> is going to make a dent in the process? Are you personally prepared
> to divest yourself from all human activities that put CO2 and other
> gases into the air? Are you going to demand that all third world
> countries put an immediate stop to their plans for becoming
> industrialized? Good luck with that.


You are over reacting. We need to change by developing better
technologies that are less polluting. We (people in many
nations) are doing that, but is the rate fast enough?
For example, Europe is way ahead in developing wind farms.
There are many technologies and are "cleaner" and cost nominally
more. Where I live (Colorado) we voted to mandate (at increase
taxes) a higher percentage of renewable energy, including wind
and solar. I have solar cells now, even one on my car
(a custom thing), and will continue to invest in that direction.

>>The polar ice caps are shrinking too:
>>"The minimum Arctic sea ice animation clearly
>>shows how over the last 5 years the quantity
>>of polar ice has decreased by 10 - 14% from the 22 year average."
>>http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000...181/index.html

>
> If true, where is the corresponding 10 - 14% increase in the rate of
> sea level rise in the past 5 years? That percentage of melting of
> the polar ice is HUGE, and if true we should have seen a significant
> rise in sea levels already. If the remaining 86 - 90% of the ice
> melts, as you seem to believe, how will that result in Florida being
> under water?


Yes, sea level rise is increasing, yet another factor in the growing
list of indicators of warming. The rise was about 0.15 mm/year
for ~3000 years, then 1 to 3 mm/year since about 1900,
and higher (3-4mm) today. (long term historical data from
tide gages and geologic records, latest from satellites)

Here are data from precise satellite measurements:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu

from 1995 to today sea level has risen about 40 mm.

>>Better go photograph polar bears while you can. In a few
>>years they may be quite rare.

>
> The only ones I've photographed have been in zoos. If their natural
> environment actually is shrinking, they will either adapt or die out.
> There are lots of species in the museums who couldn't adapt to the
> constantly changing natural environment, long before man built the
> first smoke stack.


When the oil runs out, will the naysayers adapt or die out?
Others will have converted to solar/other long before that.

On the positive side for the photographic thread, if the solar
flux is increasing, we'll all be able to use shorter exposure
times. On the negative side, the higher temperatures will
mean more thermal noise in our digital camera images.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
smb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2006
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:30:24 -0800, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>smb wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:54:25 -0800, "Roger N. Clark (change username
>> to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>smb wrote:
>>>
>>>>Regarding what credible scientists may say, it's still not conclusive.
>>>>Maybe the earth is warming from a combination of natural and human
>>>>effects. Maybe it isn't. There are models and predictions, but there
>>>>is no proof.
>>>
>>>There is no proof that the theory of gravity is correct either.
>>>Gravity exists. We use gravity theory to navigate spacecraft
>>>all over the solar system with amazing precision. But
>>>there is no proof. But the theory works well enough to
>>>explain all our needs with impressive precision.

>>
>> Oh, please.... there is much more evidence of gravity than there is
>> of human-caused global warming. The reason that we can navigate with
>> gravity is because it is so predictable even if we don't understand
>> the mechanism behind it. Global warming is still speculation and
>> open to debate. Don't forget, peer-reviewed scientists were warning
>> us of global cooling not long ago.

>
>The only speculation is by those denying warming is real. The
>evidence is overwhelming that the earth is warming, and from
>multiple lines of evidence. The controversy is really what fraction
>of that warming is caused by people and what proportion of each
>cause is contributing to the total effect.
>


I don't deny that the data show a warming trend. My objection is the
politicization and overreaction before knowing exactly what is
happening and why. Again, the earth has warmed and cooled
considerably over the eons. There's nothing new under the sun. We
can measure things better these days, but that's no need to go off
half-cocked.



>>>The evidence for accelerated global warming is growing
>>>every year. The data are "shouting louder and louder."
>>>There is no proof in most science. But there are models
>>>and predictions that have very high probability of being
>>>correct.
>>>
>>>There are no models using the vast arrays of data from multiple
>>>sources, that I'm aware of, in the peer-reviewed
>>>scientific literature that indicates that all the CO2 and
>>>other pollution we put into our environment do not
>>>have an effect. Please cite peer reviewed science papers
>>>that indicate your position has merit.

>>
>> Peer reviewed just means that others with similar opinions agree.

>
>You apparently don't understand the scientific process. It is certainly
>true that a bad paper can be published, or papers with mistakes,
>but it is also interesting to see the rapid response corrections
>and counter papers published. Scientists make their careers on
>being correct, and seem to delight in ripping someone else's
>work apart, in order to become king of the nerd hill for a while.
>It is a system that works well. Much like the back and forth
>discussions in these newsgroups, science discussions are played
>out in the scientific literature in the form of letters to the
>editor, gray literature (e.g. institution publications), peer-reviewed
>journals, and more recently web sites. Until web sites, this
>interaction took months to years in the paper publication
>process.


Exactly. Much of what used to be considered scientific fact is
sometimes just the product of oversized egos.



>
>> Please cite conclusive proof that what you say is true. Otherwise it
>> is all a matter of speculation and models that depend on many
>> variables.

>
>There will never be conclusive proof in some people eyes.
>The question is what constitutes enough evidence to convince
>you or me, or someone else?


The bigger issue is how we react to inconclusive and sometimes
contradictory data. IMO, even if the data conclusively prove that
the earth is in a prolonged warming cycle, I don't think there's a
thing we can do about it short of preparing for warmer weather.



>
>> It's interesting that some scientists are now stepping back from their
>> original projections. My guess is that 20 years from now scientists
>> may be looking back and discussing in peer-reviewed journals how the
>> global warming scare was mostly hot air. They changed their minds
>> about global cooling, why not this also?

>
>This is a great example of the scientific process. Some scientists
>came out and said the earth would suffer global cooling.
>But others stepped in and analyzed more data and refined the
>models and found those scientists were wrong. That happened
>decades ago. Since then more data, more research, more refined
>models, and the answer keeps coming up the same:
>global warming is happening and we are getting refined data
>and answers to determine the causes of that warming.
>Initially, some scientists said it was all due to people.
>Others stepped in and should that was not the best answer and
>showed the sun is varying and contributing to the warming.
>(Did you know Mars' polar caps are also shrinking?).
>So the scientific process is working very well indeed.
>Decades of research are overwhelmingly point to warming.
>Evidence is becoming clearer that a portion of that warming
>is due to people. What the exact fraction is is what
>is currently being discussed the scientific literature.


The problem is when people like Al Gore take what is merely being
discussed, present it to the public as fact, then push for regulations
that will seriously harm the economic well-being of the population.


>
>>>CO2 is a well documented greenhouse gas. We have direct
>>>measurements of its effects on the Earth, Venus and Mars.
>>>Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have an effect.
>>>
>>>No one answered my question on what is the most important
>>>greenhouse gas by a factor of about 8 over all other terrestrial
>>>greenhouse gases?

>>
>> Well, actually I answered your question, if you bothered to look. The
>> most important greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. The effects of
>> CO2 are minor by comparison.

>
>Excellent! Correct.


Do I get a green Earth Day sticker for my forehead?




>
>> We could double the amount of CO2 we
>> put in the atmosphere and it would have a relatively minor effect on
>> global temperatures. Some scientists have determined that the total
>> effect of CO2 on the rise in global temperatures since the time of the
>> industrial revolution is indeed quite small.
>>
>> http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.ed...ations-of-co2/

>
>This is an interesting read and raises interesting issues. But I note
>you are focusing on CO2 and as outlined in the above link, there
>are numerous sources causing the warming. Then also notice, no one
>is talking about whether warming exists or not, but the relative
>contributions of each source.
>
>It is also of interest to note in the above web exchange that
>there is little discussion of water vapor, the gas causing the
>most warming. It is ignored because it "is not a well mixed
>gas." Another reason is that it is so variable and there
>are no good measurements of it in the historical record. That
>makes it difficult to include in the models. Hmmm....
>
>> What about that big continuous nuclear explosion in the sky that we
>> call the sun? Perhaps that is the biggest factor by far in the mean
>> temperature of the planet... don't you think so?

>
>Certainly if there was no sun, we would all freeze, and certainly
>the sun is the major cause of warming. The changing sun is now
>pretty well established, and is being precisely measured and
>included in models.


Exactly. I think when all the dust settles we'll find that the Sun
is by far the greatest contributor.

>
>>>I hope you don't live in Florida when the polar ice caps
>>>melt! Get out your scuba gear!

>>
>> If you actually believe that will happen in our lifetimes, if at all,
>> you probably also think that "The Day After Tomorrow" was a
>> documentary.

>
>"The Day After Tomorrow" was really bad in my opinion.
>The freezing thing was totally absurd.


Amen to that.


>
>>>>>Next trip to Alaska, I might try and visit some of the
>>>>>glaciers I photographed in the 1990s to see how they have
>>>>>changed.
>>>>
>>>>When you go, I'll bet you'll find they either shrunk, grew or stayed
>>>>the same. We live on a dynamic planet.
>>>
>>>http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html.
>>>Glacier net loss from 1961 to present: about 6,000 cubic kilometers!

>>
>> Right, the planet is dymamic, as I said.
>>
>> The bigger question is, what are YOU going to do about it? If this
>> rapid and drastic change is indeed the result of man's activities over
>> the past century, then how do you intend to put the brakes on it?

>
>1) education.
>2) I do make fundamental measurements on material properties.
>A fundamental parameter in the heat balance equation is the
>albedo (reflected) of the earth's surface. For any spot
>on the earth, that albedo changes as a function of incident light.
>Climate models need to include this.


But all the education and measurement in the world isn't going to
change a process with planetary inertia behind it. It may make more
people aware of it, that's all.



>
>> Do
>> you really think that curbside recycling or taking mass transportation
>> is going to make a dent in the process? Are you personally prepared
>> to divest yourself from all human activities that put CO2 and other
>> gases into the air? Are you going to demand that all third world
>> countries put an immediate stop to their plans for becoming
>> industrialized? Good luck with that.

>
>You are over reacting. We need to change by developing better
>technologies that are less polluting. We (people in many
>nations) are doing that, but is the rate fast enough?
>For example, Europe is way ahead in developing wind farms.
>There are many technologies and are "cleaner" and cost nominally
>more. Where I live (Colorado) we voted to mandate (at increase
>taxes) a higher percentage of renewable energy, including wind
>and solar. I have solar cells now, even one on my car
>(a custom thing), and will continue to invest in that direction.


That's not overreacting at all if indeed global warming is disasterous
and it is caused by human activity. If we are really responsible for
what is happening, merely reducing things won't do anything to reverse
it.

The little things you do are symbolic, that's all. Try telling the
developing countries that they have to forego fossil fuels because
scientists in the developed countries have decided it's bad for the
planet. That ain't going to happen.

>
>>>The polar ice caps are shrinking too:
>>>"The minimum Arctic sea ice animation clearly
>>>shows how over the last 5 years the quantity
>>>of polar ice has decreased by 10 - 14% from the 22 year average."
>>>http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000...181/index.html

>>
>> If true, where is the corresponding 10 - 14% increase in the rate of
>> sea level rise in the past 5 years? That percentage of melting of
>> the polar ice is HUGE, and if true we should have seen a significant
>> rise in sea levels already. If the remaining 86 - 90% of the ice
>> melts, as you seem to believe, how will that result in Florida being
>> under water?

>
>Yes, sea level rise is increasing, yet another factor in the growing
>list of indicators of warming. The rise was about 0.15 mm/year
>for ~3000 years, then 1 to 3 mm/year since about 1900,
>and higher (3-4mm) today. (long term historical data from
>tide gages and geologic records, latest from satellites)


And I just saw on the news that the first inhabited island was
officially lost to rising sea levels. So this is happening. Now,
will wind farms and hybrid cars do anything to bring that island back?
Those who live on the coasts would do better for themselves to invest
in some inland property rather than solar cells on their roofs.


>
>Here are data from precise satellite measurements:
>
>http://sealevel.colorado.edu
>
>from 1995 to today sea level has risen about 40 mm.
>
>>>Better go photograph polar bears while you can. In a few
>>>years they may be quite rare.

>>
>> The only ones I've photographed have been in zoos. If their natural
>> environment actually is shrinking, they will either adapt or die out.
>> There are lots of species in the museums who couldn't adapt to the
>> constantly changing natural environment, long before man built the
>> first smoke stack.

>
>When the oil runs out, will the naysayers adapt or die out?
>Others will have converted to solar/other long before that.


The conversion to alternate forms of energy will be driven by
economics, not by people feeling they are saving the planet. When
the oil truly starts to run out, the free enterprise system will do a
very nice job of bringing those sources of energy to market.

It's interesting that there are those who believe that oil is actually
a renewable resource produced deep under the surface, and as evidence
they point to oil fields that they thought had been running out
mysteriously refilling. Hmmmm.....



>
>On the positive side for the photographic thread, if the solar
>flux is increasing, we'll all be able to use shorter exposure
>times. On the negative side, the higher temperatures will
>mean more thermal noise in our digital camera images.
>


Yes, always look on the bright side! Me, I'm looking forward to not
having to retire to Florida if Florida will be brought to me...


Steve


>Roger

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dynamic range of digital image sensors Mr.Adams Digital Photography 10 04-05-2005 10:15 PM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 6 04-01-2005 05:26 PM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 5 04-01-2005 02:08 PM
Tips For Manual Photgraphy Sudhakar Digital Photography 20 06-04-2004 03:20 PM
Questions about Macro photgraphy equipments holydiver Digital Photography 4 09-04-2003 09:56 PM



Advertisments