Earth Photography: It's Harder Than It Looks

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by me, Feb 27, 2012.

  1. me

    me Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. me

    me Guest

    me, Feb 27, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. me

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Feb 28, 2012
    #3
  4. me

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Mar 1, 2012
    #4
  5. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2012-02-27 15:29 , me wrote:
    : > http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letters/posts/post_1330118334979.html
    :
    : Cool photo - for the aurora.
    :
    : Also, easily identifiable is the circular Manicouagan Reservoir -
    : created by damming a river for hydro power (about 5000 MW in a series of
    : 4 dams). The circle is the eroded remnant of a crater created by a
    : meteor impact some 200 M years ago.

    What made the circle lower than the surrounding ground? IOW, how did damming
    the river ensure that the water would remain in the circle? Did they build an
    artificial outer wall?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 2, 2012
    #5
  6. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    : > http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letters/posts/post_1330118334979.html
    :
    : NASA should be looking out, not down. They've hooked their wagon
    : to the global warming "cause" to justify their existence after the
    : discontinuation of the Shuttle program so now they monitor Earth.

    Quite right. What the hell do we care what happens on Earth?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 2, 2012
    #6
  7. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2012-03-04 03:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    :
    : > We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
    : > what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.
    :
    : The interpretation of temperature and other environmental data is the
    : domain of scientists. They have overwhelmingly confirmed a rise in
    : global temperature averages and by a wide margin attributed it to human
    : activities in the past 100+ years.
    : (IPCC Climate Change 2007 aka the "4th report").

    Two problems with that:

    1. Regardless of what the scientists say, they have not proven the connection
    to human activities. And ...

    2. Even if you accept that connection, they have not shown that the proposed
    "solutions", or *anything* within current human capabilities, will even begin
    to do the job.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 4, 2012
    #7
  8. I think the evidence points to variability in temperature over the ages.
    As I recall planet earth at one point was a ball of ice, so I guess we
    have been warming ever since, albeit at a variable rate.

    Although I guess it is possible, it is hard for me to believe it is
    actually anthropogenic, even recently. Nature has pumped a lot more
    trash into the atmosphere then man.
    You are reading from a different playbook than most of us. First of
    all, I don't think there is a "Republican anti environmental movement."
    There are those who deny the climate has been warming, but I don't see
    that is limited to Republicans or to people who are against the
    environment. In fact, if the latter exists, it would like to see
    temperatures move to any extreme, I would think, as a good way to
    destroy the current environment. Cold would be as good as heat.

    I'm not sure how anybody could deny that temperatures are somewhat
    higher today than a few hundred years ago. However, determining the
    cause is a different matter. Man may be totally responsible or not and
    there are other theories. I don't find the evidence one way or the
    other to be compelling.

    This may, in fact, turn out to be like smoking, where the evidence
    gradually built until it was impossible for most people to deny.
    However, I smoked for many years and mere correlation wasn't sufficient
    to prove causation. Once the evidence became sufficiently strong, I
    quit. Some quit before me and others after, but I had to make that
    decision based on the evidence I saw.
     
    Robert Peirce, Mar 4, 2012
    #8
  9. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    : In article <>,
    :
    : > No. It means that the collective evidence (including temperature records
    : > of several kinds) investigated by a wide range of scientists from
    : > different disciplines indicate warming and its anthropogenic cause.
    :
    : I think the evidence points to variability in temperature over the ages.
    : As I recall planet earth at one point was a ball of ice, so I guess we
    : have been warming ever since, albeit at a variable rate.

    The earth has been a lot colder, and a lot warmer, in the past than it is now.
    The current warming trend represents the tail end of the last ice age, which
    reached its peak about 11,000 years ago. And there have been many ice ages and
    many warm periods in the earth's history.

    : Although I guess it is possible, it is hard for me to believe it is
    : actually anthropogenic, even recently. Nature has pumped a lot more
    : trash into the atmosphere then man.

    It's not hard to believe that some of the very recent warming has been
    anthropogenic, since the increase correlates rather well with the onset of the
    industrial revolution. But how much of it is anthropogenic is hard to assess,
    because the recent warming would probably have been faster in any case. Once
    the last of the glaciers began to melt, the earth would absorb more sunlight,
    since bare ground is less reflective than snow and ice.

    : > I should point out that the (mainly) Republican anti environmental
    : > movement playbook is nearly verbatim that of the tobacco industry
    : > against the onslaught of legislation and medical advice against smoking.
    : >
    : > That is to say: influence, denial, cherry picking of facts, dubious
    : > (aligned) experts, conspiracy theories and so on.
    :
    : You are reading from a different playbook than most of us. First of
    : all, I don't think there is a "Republican anti environmental movement."
    : There are those who deny the climate has been warming, but I don't see
    : that is limited to Republicans or to people who are against the
    : environment. In fact, if the latter exists, it would like to see
    : temperatures move to any extreme, I would think, as a good way to
    : destroy the current environment. Cold would be as good as heat.
    :
    : I'm not sure how anybody could deny that temperatures are somewhat
    : higher today than a few hundred years ago. However, determining the
    : cause is a different matter. Man may be totally responsible or not and
    : there are other theories. I don't find the evidence one way or the
    : other to be compelling.

    There are two important questions now, and whether or not man is responsible
    for the warming isn't one of them. The two questions are:

    1. Can we do anything meaningful about the warming, or are we risking the
    viability of the world's economic system to fund efforts that can never have
    more than a minimal effect?

    2. Assuming that the answer to question 2 is "yes" (and that, after all, is
    what hasn't been proven), what, if anything, should we do?

    The second question is not as silly as some will try to make it sound.
    Consider this thought experiment: What if the environmentalists were warning
    us of the onset of global cooling, rather than global warming? During the last
    ice age an impenetrable sheet of ice overlay North America as far south as
    Cincinnati. And you have to go back only to 1816 to see how quickly an ice age
    can get started if conditions are right. (Google it; I don't have room to
    explain it here.) The bottom line is that we don't know whether the ultimate
    effect of global warming is to propel us on a course leading to the fate of
    Venus (Google that too, if necessary) or to prevent a devastating ice age.
    What we do know is that the Law of Unintended Consequences has never been
    repealed. So more thought and serious research on this issue, and less
    uninformed and semi-informed bluster, could hardly be amiss.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 4, 2012
    #9
  10. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Denier lies.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #10
  11. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    The denier pushes more lies.

    Tjhne reality is that the "Little Ice Age" ended centuries ago and
    what we're seeing now is a dramatic increase in temperatures that has
    accelerated in just the past couple of centuries.
    It has everything to do with US politics, and in particular the
    disinformation promoted by US oil and coal companies.
    No, liar, it does not.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #11
  12. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    "Cigarettes don't cause cancer"
    And an outright lie.

    Typical denier stupidity.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #12
  13. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 04 Mar 2012 23:45:24 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    : >On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:21:24 -0500, Robert Peirce <>
    : >wrote:
    : >: In article <>,
    : >:
    : >: > No. It means that the collective evidence (including temperature records
    : >: > of several kinds) investigated by a wide range of scientists from
    : >: > different disciplines indicate warming and its anthropogenic cause.
    : >:
    : >: I think the evidence points to variability in temperature over the ages.
    : >: As I recall planet earth at one point was a ball of ice, so I guess we
    : >: have been warming ever since, albeit at a variable rate.
    : >
    : >The earth has been a lot colder, and a lot warmer, in the past than it is now.
    : >The current warming trend represents the tail end of the last ice age, which
    :
    : Denier lies.

    I'm not a denier; where did you get the idea that I am? It couldn't be from
    what I wrote. Or is this just your week to call everybody a liar?

    The two lines of mine that you quoted are established fact. If you don't
    understand that, it's unlikely that anything else you say on the subject will
    be worth listening to.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 5, 2012
    #13
  14. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 04 Mar 2012 23:48:31 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    : >On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:51:15 -0500, Alan Browne
    : >: On 2012-03-04 03:37 , Eric Stevens wrote:
    : >:
    : >: > We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
    : >: > what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.
    : >:
    : >: The interpretation of temperature and other environmental data is the
    : >: domain of scientists. They have overwhelmingly confirmed a rise in
    : >: global temperature averages and by a wide margin attributed it to human
    : >: activities in the past 100+ years.
    : >: (IPCC Climate Change 2007 aka the "4th report").
    : >
    : >Two problems with that:
    : >
    : >1. Regardless of what the scientists say, they have not proven the connection
    : >to human activities.
    :
    : "Cigarettes don't cause cancer"

    Of course they do. What does that have to do with global warming?

    : > And ...
    : >
    : >2. Even if you accept that connection, they have not shown that the proposed
    : >"solutions", or *anything* within current human capabilities, will even begin
    : >to do the job.
    :
    : And an outright lie.
    :
    : Typical denier stupidity.

    I don't think you know what constitutes proof of a conjecture, the difference
    between a denier and a skeptic, or even what the scientific method is. Do some
    reading and come back when you know what you're talking about.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 5, 2012
    #14
  15. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    When you lie then expect to be called a liar. It's not complicated.

    Calling the current warming trend nothing more than "the tail end of
    the last ice age" is a blatant and stupid lie.
    Lacking any sort of credible cite. In fact, claiming that the sharp
    uptick in global temperatures of the past century are related to an
    ice age that ended some 20,000 years ago is a stupid, dumbass lie.

    Which is what we expect from denier shills.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 5, 2012
    #15
  16. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Awww, the denier shill is getting pouty because his Big Oil
    disinformation is being refuted.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 5, 2012
    #16
  17. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    "I don't think you know what constitutes proof of a conjecture"
    You use the same propaganda tactics that the tobacco companies used.
    Certainly nothing that you have written.
    You're a denier. A skeptic is rational.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 5, 2012
    #17
  18. me

    Bruce Guest


    But all the evidence from the past shows that rises in atmospheric CO2
    have come about *only as a result* of warming. Rises in CO2 have
    always *followed* warm periods. None of the evidence suggests that
    any previous rise in atmospheric CO2 *causes* warming.
     
    Bruce, Mar 5, 2012
    #18
  19. me

    Bruce Guest


    But will this newsgroup still exist 30 years from now? ;-)
     
    Bruce, Mar 5, 2012
    #19
  20. And don't forget that primary data is evolving. At one time all we had
    were thermometers spotted fairly widely over the earth's surface. Some
    key areas weren't even included. Now we have satellite observation and
    it probably hasn't evolved anywhere near where it could go in a few more
    years. Nevertheless, it is providing a much better measure of
    planetwide temperatures.

    The problem is the different measures aren't necessarily compatible.
    For example, a thermometer in your back yard isn't going to give you a
    very good idea of what is happening in the next county.

    I have a home on a mountain where the temperature can be as much as 15
    degrees cooler than in the valley or it may be the same. Proxies may
    not be that accurate but they are better than nothing. The important
    thing is not to read too much into them. It may be okay to say that
    temperatures X years ago might have been as much as 10 degrees cooler or
    thy might have been the same. It wouldn't be correct to say they were
    exactly 2.84 degrees lower.
     
    Robert Peirce, Mar 5, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.