PDA

View Full Version : Astrosphere for August 7, 2007



Fraser
2007-Aug-07, 07:43 PM
Today's astrophoto for the astrosphere is of Hoag's Object, captured by RickJ. This is a difficult galaxy to capture with an amateur telescope, so nice work Rick. ...

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/08/07/astrosphere-for-august-7-2007/)

Random63
2007-Aug-08, 10:26 AM
[QUOTE=Fraser;1044364]There's a great 6-page article over at Newsweek about Global Warming deniers. Having dealt with it myself, it was great to see a main stream media article that goes this deeply into the concerted effort by polluters to confuse the public.[QUOTE]

With all due respect, I'm not paid by any polluters nor am I confused. I'm well educated and can figure things out for myself. We have more solar activity than usual that has raised temperatures SLIGHTLY not only on Earth, but on the other planets too.

The global warming crowd is the one that is trying to spread misinformation by either funding/buying off scientists to back their insistence that man is going to cause some great meltdown or trying to silence or destroy people who are courageous enough to stand against them with the truth.

The global warming crowd is not interested in saving the Earth, but more interested in control and power. I have never in my life seen such a concerted effort by a political group to suppress science and debate as I have seen with this global warming crowd. Reminds me of how the church used to suppress the great scientists and astronomers of centuries past. The Earth doesn't need “saving” and it is arrogant to think we can "destroy" the Earth, let alone "save" it.

By the way, I live near the ocean and am still waiting for the sea levels to rise to flood my home as predicted by the global warming crowd. There has been NO discernable difference in the sea level from my part of the ocean in the 11 years I've lived here. I'm also still waiting for the frequent and monster hurricanes that the global warming folks are always screaming about. Since the four hurricanes in 2004 that struck Florida, I haven't seen much activity there either. I'll take my own eyes and research over some media or politicians word any day.

Be safe and be well.

Jerry
2007-Aug-08, 04:30 PM
[QUOTE=Fraser;1044364]There's a great 6-page article over at Newsweek about Global Warming deniers. Having dealt with it myself, it was great to see a main stream media article that goes this deeply into the concerted effort by polluters to confuse the public.[QUOTE]

With all due respect, I'm not paid by any polluters nor am I confused. I'm well educated and can figure things out for myself. We have more solar activity than usual that has raised temperatures SLIGHTLY not only on Earth, but on the other planets too.
Actually, solar activity is down, and the sun is cooling slightly. I see the misinformation campaign is working well.



The global warming crowd is not interested in saving the Earth, but more interested in control and power. I have never in my life seen such a concerted effort by a political group to suppress science and debate as I have seen with this global warming crowd. Reminds me of how the church used to suppress the great scientists and astronomers of centuries past. The Earth doesn't need “saving” and it is arrogant to think we can "destroy" the Earth, let alone "save" it.

I sat in engineering classes three decades ago, when the global warming theory was first developed. It was strictly apolitical - politicians of all persuasions were oblivious, and frankly a nuclear winter was a much more likely scenario. To say we cannot destroy the earth shows a depthly lack of knowledge of what agriculture has already destroyed (especially in Africa).

Well-educated usually implies at least a cursory knowledge of anthropological studies. I suggest that you read up on extinction and the known correlations between human activities and desertification.

Did you know, for example, that the widespread wild fires we are experiencing in the west are a direct result of overgrassing? The clump grasses native to the western U.S. deserts are gone, replaced by cheat grasses that carpet the desert during the spring. If there is a wet spell followed by a severe dry one, these high cheat grasses easily spread flames to scrub oak and other species that break wind and retain soil. Scrub oak stands which have survived for centuries are gone, and the desert soil is quickly being replaced with desert sand. Think dust bowl.


By the way, I live near the ocean and am still waiting for the sea levels to rise to flood my home as predicted by the global warming crowd. There has been NO discernable difference in the sea level from my part of the ocean in the 11 years I've lived here.

If you were at all aware of the global warming studies, you would know the oceans will not rise significantly until the ice masses on land melt, and the temperature rises penetrate deep into the ocean. It will take decades to produce noticable changes (other than near the equator, where one small island chain in the Atlantic that has disappeared already - satellites tell us the melting that has occurred to date is expanding the girth of the earth).


I'm also still waiting for the frequent and monster hurricanes that the global warming folks are always screaming about. Since the four hurricanes in 2004 that struck Florida, I haven't seen much activity there either. I'll take my own eyes and research over some media or politicians word any day.

Are you serious or is this a joke? My own eyes and research cannot tell me a thing about the spread of yellow fevor to higher latitudes unless I read what is published by concerned scientists - I live in a desert! What makes you think climatologist have a political agenda rather than valid, scientific concerns? Getting politicians on the bandwagon is an insidious but necessary step scientists generally hate to climb - they shoot the messengers.

Random63
2007-Aug-09, 02:12 AM
There is no "misinformation" campaign that is affecting my judgment on Global Warming. The global warming crowd preaches this hysteria and threatens anyone that disagrees or has data that disagrees with their doctrine. Science left this debate a long, long time ago and that in my most humble opinion discredited the entire thing. Politicians and the media should never be allowed to drive a scientific debate. The media are nothing but Professional ignorant, malicious gossips full of self importance and the politicians are just full of lust for power and also self importance. (Yes, I know that is a blanket statement.) . The media and politicians have decided that global warming caused by humans is a fact and to hell with science and evidence that might prove otherwise.


It bothers me to see careers threatened because a scientist presents data or an educated opinion that is not in agreement with the "doctrine" of global warming. Dr. William Gray, the man who is well known for his hurricane research, expressed his professional doubts on global warming. Since he was a respected and well known scientist, the global warming proponents had to be careful about how they attacked him. They would express their “respect” for him, then point out things such as he’s old and maybe a bit feeble minded or that he wasn’t really that great to begin with in his hurricane research, etc. They still attacked and tried to discredit him as a scientist and person, but were a bit more subtle about it. Not once did they try to refute his opinion with science. It was all personal attacks. (Your own reaction to my first post is another good example. “Are you serious or is this a joke?” I am serious or I would be posting on a comedy site instead.)

An article that was carried in the Drudgereport today said that global warming was going to cause earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and Tsunamis. After reading the article, I’m surprised it didn’t claim that global warming was the cause of hangovers after a night of heavy drinking. (Yes, that last part was my poor attempt at a joke.)


When the polls here in the USA started showing the public becoming skeptic about global warming, the first thing the preachers of this doctrine did was change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Wow, like the weather was always static to begin with? Once that didn’t work, they began to attack anyone presenting science or evidence contrary to global warming as someone that is part of some great misinformation conspiracy or has been bought off. The funny thing is, many global warming proponents were the ones screaming for the research dollars and grants in order to fight this “disaster” (and save the Earth!) and are threatened when someone challenges their research. Truth seems to always lose when someone’s research grants need to be protected.

I am not a scientist, but I am a degreed professional that works in the aerospace industry. I am aware and have read of the regional problems such as desertification in parts of the world, and of the spread of yellow fever and malaria. Does man have the ability to affect a region’s ecosystem? Of course he does. We do it everyday, but I stand by my opinion that we are arrogant to believe that we have enough power to affect the entire world’s climate. Our climate, our world, and our sun are not static, but have always been dynamic and ever changing. That has gone on before man ever appeared on Earth and will continue on long after we are gone.

Global warming caused by man is a theory, not a fact. It is one of many hypotheses that need to be continually tested as new evidence and methods come to light. That is the genius of the scientific method when it is allowed to pursue the truth and not be suppressed or influenced by grants, research money, or political agendas.


Be safe and be well.

Jerry
2007-Aug-09, 06:17 PM
[quote]Global warming caused by man is a theory, not a fact. It is one of many hypotheses that need to be continually tested as new evidence and methods come to light. That is the genius of the scientific method when it is allowed to pursue the truth and not be suppressed or influenced by grants, research money, or political agenda.
Just the facts, then: We burn fossil fuels, a biproduct of the burning is CO2. We know how much CO2 we produce, and we know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing quite rapidly and we know this increase is due to this burning activity.

We also know CO2 has the right chemical bond lengths to capture heat energy that would otherwise escape into space, and trap more calories of energy in the lower atmosphere, the same way the insulation in your home prevents the transfer of thermal energy through the walls. We get to use these facts to conclude that all other things being equal, this should increase the surface temperature of the earth. We can then look at the fact that both CO2 levels are increasing and global surface temperatures are increasing and understand there is a causal mechanism that associates these two events in a scientifically quantifiable cause-effect relationship. No theory is necessary, only an understanding of the thermoldynamics of the atmosphere and the physical properties of C02.

We also know increasing the surface temperature will increase the melting rate of glaciers, and increase the amount of energy available for tropical storms to absorb from the oceans. We know that as the surface temperature is conducted deeper into the ocean, the water does expand and take up more volume. We know water is being redistributed on the surface of the planet, and we know that when we redistribute large masses of water (for example, during the filling of dams) seizmic activity increases. All facts.

What we did not known with scientific certainty is whether or not this human contribution was significant compared with natural variance in the climate cycle. It was not until the last decade that this question could be answered with confidence, and it can now be said with scientific certainty (99+% confidence) yes, we are changing the global climate: Global warming is occurring at a much faster rate than our climate records indicate it has ever increased naturally. Dr. Gray is not looking at the data objectively, and that is sad, because global warming is no longer a theory, according to well established scientific principles of analysis and facts.

What politicians will or should do with this information is uncertain. It is arrogant or naive to assume doing nothing is the best coarse of action. We know we can manage crops and soil in a manner that minimizes desertification. We hope we can harvest the ocean and forests in ways that allow these resources to balance and recover, and we try to do that. We know we almost destroyed the raptor populations with global use of DDT, and we know the populations recovered when we limited DDT use. We should be optomistic about our ability to reduce our impact on the world's climate.

In the valley where I live, the four most popular new vehicles purchased are large 4x4 pickup trucks with great big engines. This is bazarre, because it does not reflect economy, need or utility. Frankly, I am of the opinion it is because many of the people who live around me listen daily to the dogma of the global warming nasayers during their daily 8mpg commute. It is their stubborn expression of disdain for a growing global disappoval of their throw-away-energy life style that drives their vehicle purchases away from more prudent choices. Besides, the big engines make it easier to run the air conditioning most of the year. It is getting hotter in the desert.