Re: Global warming and hurricanes...
basskisser
Tom Francis wrote:
> Well, it appears that "global warming" may not be the only cause of
> severe hurricanes.
Who said global warming was the only cause of hurricanes?
>
> Imagine that - you mean it's not all "global warming"?
>
> Nah - can't be - that doesn't fit the Al Gore Model of Doom.
>
Sure it does. Where did Al Gore say that global warming was the only
cause of hurricanes?
Chuck Gould
Tom Francis wrote:
> Well, it appears that "global warming" may not be the only cause of
> severe hurricanes.
>
>
> Nah - can't be - that doesn't fit the Al Gore Model of Doom.
>
That's really good news. By the way, did you know that smoking isn't
the only cause of lung cancer? If we extend the same logic, I guess we
don't have to worry about either global warming or cigarette smoking
because we would have at least some hurricanes *anyway* and thousands
of non-smokers die of lung cancer every year.
Anybody with an understanding of how and why winds of any description
occur in the atmosphere of our planet would not be reluctant to
recognize that temperature differentials are among the primary engines
of winds and storms, whether over land or sea.
Take a look at earth from outer space, particularly on the dark
(nighttime) side of the planet.
The coastlines and the plains in the industrialized areas are so
brightly lit and energized that
the glow can be seen for hundreds of miles or more. To completely
pooh-pooh global warming, one must take one of two pretty radical
positions: 1) That all of that light and associated activities
involving combustion do not change the temperature of the atmosphere
or alter the distribution of solar energy to the land, sea, and
atsmospheric gasses. Essentially, "the planet would be exactly the same
temperature if there were no industrial activity going on". Or, 2)
Increased temperatures have no effect on winds, currents, or the other
natural forces that we have come to accept as normal or at least
predictible.
basskisser
Tom Francis wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006 07:45:47 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
> the more real science we do to try and understand it, the better off
> we will be.
>
> I have never denied, at any time, that warming of the atmosphere is
> part of the equation - but that's exactly the point. It's part of the
> equation. Solar winds, African dust, the fluttering of butterfly
> wings in New Mexico - it's very complicated. It's not just one thing.
>
> Also, I will try and find a picture I received among a group of
> pictures from STS-11 which were sent me as part of an amateur radio
> package I did for the local Middle School - allowed the kids to talk
> to the astronauts (that was one of the coolest things I have ever
> done).
>
> Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's like
> one mass of light - amazing image.
>
> I'll find it and scan it.
National Geographic had a satellite photo of the eastern U.S. at night,
it was amazing. I'll try to find it.
basskisser
Tom Francis wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006 07:45:47 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
> <chuckgou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> the more real science we do to try and understand it, the better off
> we will be.
>
> I have never denied, at any time, that warming of the atmosphere is
> part of the equation - but that's exactly the point. It's part of the
> equation. Solar winds, African dust, the fluttering of butterfly
> wings in New Mexico - it's very complicated. It's not just one thing.
>
> Also, I will try and find a picture I received among a group of
> pictures from STS-11 which were sent me as part of an amateur radio
> package I did for the local Middle School - allowed the kids to talk
> to the astronauts (that was one of the coolest things I have ever
> done).
>
> Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's like
> one mass of light - amazing image.
>
> I'll find it and scan it.
http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_1996-97.gif
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/usa-nightlights1994-1995b.jpg
basskisser
Alotta Fagina wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> >> Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's like
> >> one mass of light - amazing image.
> >>
> >> I'll find it and scan it.
> >
> > http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_1996-97.gif
>
>
> > http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/usa-nightlights1994-1995b.jpg
>
> Neither is that.
How are they NOT pictures????
pic‧ture /ˈpɪktʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[pik-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun 1. a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a
painting, drawing, photograph, etc.: I carry a picture of my grandchild
in my wallet.
2. any visible image, however produced: pictures reflected in a pool of
water.
3. a mental image: a clear picture of how he had looked that day.
4. a particular image or reality as portrayed in an account or
description; depiction; version.
They both certainly fit #1, huh?
Opps, they both fit #2's definition also, huh?
What a dolt!
JoeSpareBedroom
news:Xns98599561A66...@66.26.32.9...
> You wrote:
>
>>
>> Alotta Fagina wrote:
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's like
>>> >> one mass of light - amazing image.
>>> >>
>>> >> I'll find it and scan it.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_1996-97.gif
>>>
>>> That's not a picture.
>>>
>>> > http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/usa-nightlights1994-1995b
>>> > .j
>> pg
>>>
>>> Neither is that.
>>
>> How are they NOT pictures????
>
> undefined measurement. Without at a minimum knowing precisely what was
> being measured, they're no more "pictures" than are Rorschach inkblots.
>
> Just curious - would you consider an MRI a "picture"? How about an
> X-Ray? Or an oscilloscope display? Most normal people wouldn't, even
> knowing what it is those devices measure and what their outputs
> represent.
Is this a picture?
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/1660/staalmeesters.jpg
Reginald P. Smithers III
> You wrote:
>
>> Alotta Fagina wrote:
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's like
>>>>> one mass of light - amazing image.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll find it and scan it.
>>>> http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_1996-97.gif
>>> That's not a picture.
>>>
>>>> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/usa-nightlights1994-1995b
>>>> .j
>> pg
>>> Neither is that.
>> How are they NOT pictures????
>
> undefined measurement. Without at a minimum knowing precisely what was
> being measured, they're no more "pictures" than are Rorschach inkblots.
>
> Just curious - would you consider an MRI a "picture"? How about an
> X-Ray? Or an oscilloscope display? Most normal people wouldn't, even
> knowing what it is those devices measure and what their outputs
> represent.
Alota,
I would consider all of those items "pictures". I would also consider a
painting a "picture". Without additional info, it would be hard to tell
which ones would be considered photographs. The dictionary would also
consider all of those items to be "pictures". For some reason you think
picture and photograph are the same. They are not.
> pic?ture /?p?kt??r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pik-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur?ing.
>
> –noun 1. a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a painting, drawing, photograph, etc.: I carry a picture of my grandchild in my wallet.
> 2. any visible image, however produced: pictures reflected in a pool of water.
> 3. a mental image: a clear picture of how he had looked that day.
> 4. a particular image or reality as portrayed in an account or description; depiction; version.
> 5. a tableau, as in theatrical representation.
> 6. motion picture.
> 7. pictures, Informal (older use). movies.
> 8. a person, thing, group, or scene regarded as resembling a work of pictorial art in beauty, fineness of appearance, etc.: She was a picture in her new blue dress.
> 9. the image or perfect likeness of someone else: He is the picture of his father.
> 10. a visible or concrete embodiment of some quality or condition: the picture of health.
> 11. a situation or set of circumstances: the economic picture.
> 12. the image on a computer monitor, the viewing screen of a television set, or a motion-picture screen.
> –verb (used with object) 13. to represent in a picture or pictorially, as by painting or drawing.
> 14. to form a mental picture of; imagine: He couldn't picture himself doing such a thing.
> 15. to depict in words; describe graphically: He pictured Rome so vividly that you half-believed you were there.
> 16. to present or create as a setting; portray: His book pictured the world of the future
Reginald P. Smithers III
Yes. It is probably also a photograph of a picture and a photograph of
a painting, a picture of Rembrandt, and the original would be considered
a very valuable painting.
Reginald P. Smithers III
> a very valuable painting.
>
basskisser
Alotta Fagina wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> >
> > Alotta Fagina wrote:
> >> You wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's like
> >> >> one mass of light - amazing image.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll find it and scan it.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_1996-97.gif
> >>
> >> That's not a picture.
> >>
> >> > http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/usa-nightlights1994-1995b
> >> > .j
> > pg
> >>
> >> Neither is that.
> >
> > How are they NOT pictures????
>
> undefined measurement. Without at a minimum knowing precisely what was
> being measured, they're no more "pictures" than are Rorschach inkblots.
>
> Just curious - would you consider an MRI a "picture"? How about an
> X-Ray? Or an oscilloscope display? Most normal people wouldn't, even
> knowing what it is those devices measure and what their outputs
> represent.
I take it you didn't see this:
pic‧ture /ˈpɪktʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[pik-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun 1. a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a
painting, drawing, photograph, etc.: I carry a picture of my grandchild
in my wallet.
2. any visible image, however produced: pictures reflected in a pool of
water.
3. a mental image: a clear picture of how he had looked that day.
4. a particular image or reality as portrayed in an account or
description; depiction; version.
They are, indeed defined as a picture.
basskisser
Tom Francis wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:44:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Is this a picture?
> >http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/rembrandt/1660/staalmeesters.jpg
>
Smoking the cheap one's eh?!
telling you @pffftt.com JimH
"Tom Francis" <fiv...@seven.com> wrote in message
news:3rjqi29dqcjsidiuk...@4ax.com...
ROTF.
Some other classic pictures:
http://thefineartcompany.co.uk/Bestsellers/C365.jpg
http://www.thevelvetstore.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/ve038-1.jpg
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/CLASS/130-221~The-Three-Stooges-Posters.jpg
Reginald P. Smithers III
>
> Miami is not a red blob. It wasn't even a red blob during the "Scarface"
> era. So if what you pointed to falls under the heading of "visual
> representation", then it is a shitty representation.
>
> Not that I'd expect different from you.
If you would not call this a "picture" what would you call it?
I definitely not a liberal, so politics has nothing to do with it, but
this is a visual representation of the "light pollution" in the US.
Hence it is a "picture". One may argue that "light pollution" is not a
problem, but the expression "light pollution" is a standard term for
light that reduces your ability to see the stars and the universe. It
is very important to astronomers.
Would you call this painting a "picture"?
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Number-18-1950-Posters_i1106615_.htm
The definition "picture" includes abstract paintings.
I can't figure out if you really don't understand the definition of
"picture' or you are just tweaking Bassy. Since you find Bass such a
idiot why don't you filter him? To argue over the standard definition
"picture" really makes you look foolish instead of Bass.
JimH
Tom Francis wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:44:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
BTW: This thread is hilarious thanks to a couple of key players who
take things too seriously! I hope they keep it up as I am having a
great time reading their replies.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:k9idnaoAio5AybDY...@comcast.com...
It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a picture, like
a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out repeatedly, even the most
accurate photograph is merely an interpretation, just like an oil painting.
Don White
Tom smokes cheap ones....no wonder they stink!
Reginald P. Smithers III
achieve the result he wanted.
JoeSpareBedroom
>> It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a picture,
>> like a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out repeatedly, even
>> the most accurate photograph is merely an interpretation, just like an
>> oil painting.
> Ansel was a master of manipulating the development of photographs to
> achieve the result he wanted.
Really?
Reginald P. Smithers III
Ansel Adams and Fred Archer are credited with creating the zone system, a
technique which allows photographers to translate the light they see into
specific densities on negatives and paper, thus giving them better control
over finished photographs. Adams also pioneered the idea of visualization
(which he often called 'previsualization', though he later acknowledged
that
term to be a redundancy) of the finished print based upon the measured
light
values in the scene being photographed.
The zone system is a unique approach to film exposure and development
invented
by Ansel Adams and Fred Archer in 1939 or 1940. The zone system provides
photographers
with a systematic method of precisely defining the relationship between
the way they
see the photographic subject and the results they achieve in their
finished works.
In a sense, the zone system plays the same role that color management
does for
digital photographers. It allows for a direct correlation between the
visual world
and the final photographic print."
from Wikipedia.
JoeSpareBedroom
> You wrote:
>
>>> It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a
>>> picture, like a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out
>>> repeatedly, even the most accurate photograph is merely an
>>> interpretation, just like an oil painting.
>>>
>>>
>> Ansel was a master of manipulating the development of photographs to
>> achieve the result he wanted.
>
> and time at which "Autumn Moon" was taken.
So what? Was it his goal to prevent researchers from making that
determination?
Maynard G. Krebbs
wrote:
Try this one:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg
Mark E. Williams
Maynard G. Krebbs
wrote:
<snippity do da>
I posted an African dust storm picture "Over There".
Mark E. Williams
Not sure where I got it but it makes nice wallpaper.
P Fritz
> You wrote:
>
>
>>Alotta Fagina wrote:
>>
>>>You wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alotta Fagina wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's
>>>>>>>like one mass of light - amazing image.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll find it and scan it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_1996-97.gif
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not a picture.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/usa-nightlights1994-19
>>>>>>95b .j
>>>>
>>>>pg
>>>>
>>>>>Neither is that.
>>>>
>>>>How are they NOT pictures????
>>>
>>>They're not photographs - they're generated outputs of some sort of
>>>undefined measurement. Without at a minimum knowing precisely what
>>>was being measured, they're no more "pictures" than are Rorschach
>>>inkblots.
>>>
>>>Just curious - would you consider an MRI a "picture"? How about an
>>>X-Ray? Or an oscilloscope display? Most normal people wouldn't, even
>>>knowing what it is those devices measure and what their outputs
>>>represent.
>>
>>I take it you didn't see this:
>>
>>pic‧ture  /ˈpɪktʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>>Pronunciation[pik-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>>noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
>>
>>–noun 1. a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a
>>painting, drawing, photograph, etc.: I carry a picture of my grandchild
>>in my wallet.
>>2. any visible image, however produced: pictures reflected in a pool of
>>water.
>>3. a mental image: a clear picture of how he had looked that day.
>>4. a particular image or reality as portrayed in an account or
>>description; depiction; version.
>>
>>They are, indeed defined as a picture.
>
>
>
> Miami is not a red blob. It wasn't even a red blob during the "Scarface"
> era. So if what you pointed to falls under the heading of "visual
> representation", then it is a shitty representation.
>
> Not that I'd expect different from you.
Ask Kevin about his "schnapps whiskey" LMAO
P Fritz
> Well, it appears that "global warming" may not be the only cause of
> severe hurricanes.
>
> Imagine that - you mean it's not all "global warming"?
>
> Nah - can't be - that doesn't fit the Al Gore Model of Doom.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jzxxq
>
I was in Santorini a couple of years ago when the got the "red rain" a
couple of nights in a row. Each morning, the white washed buildings on
the cliff sides were covered with a reddish sand coating as well as a
lot of accumulated sand in the pools. It was amazing how much sand was
dumped overnight all brought over by wind from the Sahara.
Calif Bill
>
> I really wish I could take a ride on the shuttle sometime just to see
> the sights.
>
> It has to be freakin' awesome.
Have a friend who used to fly U-2's. He said was unbelievable how big a
Saharan sand storm was and now fast it moved. But was a great view from
80,000'.
basskisser
Idiots are always easily amused.
basskisser
Absolutely! In my opinion, the best B&W photographer ever. I've been to
many places in the Sierra's that he's photographed, with a book with
copies of his paintings to compare. Amazing.
basskisser
Alotta Fagina wrote:
> You wrote:
>
> >> picture, like a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out
> >> repeatedly, even the most accurate photograph is merely an
> >> interpretation, just like an oil painting.
> >>
> >>
> > Ansel was a master of manipulating the development of photographs to
> > achieve the result he wanted.
>
> and time at which "Autumn Moon" was taken.
That's idiotic. He never even TRIED to prevent researchers from
determining the exact date and time. He simply didn't tell them.
>
> Nothing can be determined from the red blobs AssWiper posted.
Your childish name calling once again shows you have zero credibility.
You've now sunken even lower. At first you claimed that the URL's I
posted weren't pictures!!!!!!
Now, are you REALLY saying that "nothing can be determined" from
those???? REALLY???
basskisser
Tom Francis wrote:
>
> And they sure as hell ain't cheap. :>)
They still smell like somebody trying to smoke someone's old gym socks.
rfor...@msn.com
basskisser wrote:
> Tom Francis wrote:
> > severe hurricanes.
>
> >
> > Imagine that - you mean it's not all "global warming"?
> >
> > Nah - can't be - that doesn't fit the Al Gore Model of Doom.
> >
> cause of hurricanes?
I'm not an expert on any of this but I'm pretty sure that Al Gore has
never said that global warming was even A cause of hurricanes.
richforman
basskisser
Of course not, but the right wing just has to spin it into something
it's not. Then blame it on the dems. Just like in the beginning, Tom
eluded that someone said that ALL hurricanes were caused by global
warming, which is pure bullshit.
rfor...@msn.com
Tom Francis wrote:
> >
> >I'm not an expert on any of this but I'm pretty sure that Al Gore has
> >never said that global warming was even A cause of hurricanes.
>
> increases the temperature of the top layer in the ocean, and that
> causes the average hurricane to become a lot stronger. So, the fact
> that the ocean temperatures did go up because of global warming,
> because of man-made global warming, starting around in the seventies
> and then we had a string of unusually strong hurricanes outside the
> boundaries of this multi-decadal cycle that is a real factor; there
> are scientists who point that out, and they're right, but we're
> exceeding those boundaries now."
>
> "What changed in the US after Katrina was a feeling that we have
> entered a period of consequences"
>
Exactly, thanks for posting this passage that shows you realize that
your original statement was off the mark. (Gore's point is clearly
that global warming has affected the strength and intensity of
hurricanes, not that it causes them.)
richforman
thunder
> Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's like
> one mass of light - amazing image.
I like the picture Maynard posted. You can follow the interstates across
the country.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg
I'm not trying to change this into a political thread, but here is one of
the Korean peninsula that I also find amazing. I can see why that nutcase
Kim is so desperate.
Eisboch
"Chuck Gould" <chuckgou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160577947....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Francis wrote:
>> Well, it appears that "global warming" may not be the only cause of
>> severe hurricanes.
>>
>>
>> Nah - can't be - that doesn't fit the Al Gore Model of Doom.
>>
>
> That's really good news. By the way, did you know that smoking isn't
> the only cause of lung cancer? If we extend the same logic, I guess we
> don't have to worry about either global warming or cigarette smoking
> because we would have at least some hurricanes *anyway* and thousands
> of non-smokers die of lung cancer every year.
>
> Anybody with an understanding of how and why winds of any description
> occur in the atmosphere of our planet would not be reluctant to
> recognize that temperature differentials are among the primary engines
> of winds and storms, whether over land or sea.
>
> Take a look at earth from outer space, particularly on the dark
> (nighttime) side of the planet.
> The coastlines and the plains in the industrialized areas are so
> brightly lit and energized that
> the glow can be seen for hundreds of miles or more. To completely
> pooh-pooh global warming, one must take one of two pretty radical
> positions: 1) That all of that light and associated activities
> involving combustion do not change the temperature of the atmosphere
> or alter the distribution of solar energy to the land, sea, and
> atsmospheric gasses. Essentially, "the planet would be exactly the same
> temperature if there were no industrial activity going on". Or, 2)
> Increased temperatures have no effect on winds, currents, or the other
> natural forces that we have come to accept as normal or at least
> predictible.
>
Chuck, I recently read an article (can't remember the source) that
postulated that we are screwing around with mother nature and the balance of
global temperatures by fighting and prematurely extinguishing naturally
occurring forest fires. According to the author world wide wild fires
contribute to the balance of earth's temperature by adding tremendous
amounts of heat energy to the atmosphere, far more so than a bunch of light
bulbs or other forms of man-made energy conversion.
Eisboch