Earth Photography: It's Harder Than It Looks

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

  1. me

    me Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. me

    George Kerby Guest

    Good find! Thanks!
     
    George Kerby, Feb 27, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. me

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 27, 2012
    #3
  4. me

    me Guest

    me, Feb 27, 2012
    #4
  5. me

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Feb 28, 2012
    #5
  6. me

    Alan Browne Guest

    Ignorance becomes you.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 28, 2012
    #6
  7. me

    Bowser Guest

    Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
    warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
    history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
    nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.

    Betcha can't wait to vote for Santorum.
     
    Bowser, Feb 29, 2012
    #7
  8. me

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Mar 1, 2012
    #8
  9. 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
    #9
  10. 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
    #10
  11. me

    Alan Browne Guest

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manicouagan_Reservoir

    The article on Wikipedia explains it as "an eroded crater". Since 214M
    years there has been an ice age (or more), tectonic uplift, etc. as well
    as plain old erosion. (Compare to Arizona's "Meteor Crater" which is
    only 50,000 years old - eg: over 4,000 times older.)

    No walls. AFAIK, a single dam formed the lake from the existing crater
    by damming the river to the south. In terms of ROI to backup some water
    for power, probably one of the best. I guess the surveyors and
    engineers did a great job in picking out the site and studying its
    potential.
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 2, 2012
    #11
  12. me

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:16:49 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >> 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.
    :
    : Yeah. **** science. Screw all the evidence. We all KNOW that global
    : warming is a hoax! It's just a coincidence that the warmest years on
    : history have occured since 2000. Besides, science is just a bunch of
    : nunmbers. Don't mean nuthin'.
    :
    : Betcha can't wait to vote for Santorum.

    You forget that Rich is a Canadian and therefore won't be voting in any of our
    primaries. Actually, it is I, a registered Republican for historical reasons,
    who gets to vote for P. Rick Sanitorium. Which I shall do tomorrow (by turning
    in my absentee ballot for next Tuesday's election), as I believe him to be the
    weakest of the group of clowns in my party vying to run against President
    Obama.

    (Before someone remarks that I must be too lazy to go and vote, I use an
    absentee ballot because I leave for work before the polls open and must stay
    for the vote count in the city where I work. The vote count is a major public
    occasion, and the city photographer is expected to cover it. One election is
    pretty much like another, and I've accumulated quite a library of stock
    photos. But it's a good opportunity to experiment with new equipment, etc.)
    :^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 2, 2012
    #12
  13. me

    me Guest

    He's just peeved because he recently found out that an ISS major
    material of construction is plastic.
     
    me, Mar 2, 2012
    #13
  14. Yeah, we're just recovering from the small ice age (which ended
    the warm period that allowed the bloom of the middle ages) and
    we've neither temperature data from the middle ages nor from the
    time when Rome ruled the Earth and Romans grew wine in England.

    "Warmest years on history" is much like restricting photography
    to what mobile phones photographed.

    And we're not even going into prehistoric (i.e. before written
    records) times or pre-human times, where there were both ice ages
    and very warm times which (obviously!) were *not* the result of
    human activity. Nor are the worst mass extinction events
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
    human made. (Think something like 99.9x% or worse individual
    animals dead --- a full nuclear war wouldn't be as bad.)

    Live with it that climate never was constant, is always changing
    --- and change is completely natural.

    Sure, if you feel it's man-made, go ahead and change something.
    Live with *high* oil prices ($2 per litre gasoline is still
    low) and buy cars that use fuel sparingly (always a good idea).
    Use good isolation on your home and buy only regenerative electric
    energy. Change away from incandescent lamps and switch to LED or
    flourescent (with *low* and *bound* mercury contents) or similar
    power saving lighting. Start walking or cycling more than driving,
    especially for distances under 3 miles. Use well isolated fridges.
    Lower your room temperature in winter a bit and don't cool to such
    a low temperature in summer. Save water. Use the train instead
    of the car or plane. Use public mass transport. Travel less.
    And so on and so on and so on. Fight for peace (military
    uses a lot of energy and non-renewable resources).

    Saving energy where there are litte drawbacks is always a
    good idea, no matter if there's global warming or cooling.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 2, 2012
    #14
  15. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    If you think that several centuries is "just recovering".
    Both those claims are lies.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 3, 2012
    #15
  16. me

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I'm afraid they are not. The best we have got are temperature
    proxies.

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 3, 2012
    #16
  17. me

    Ray Fischer Guest

    In other words you admit that we do have "temperature data" from
    several centuries ago. In fact temperature data can be had going
    back a few thousand years.
     
    Ray Fischer, Mar 4, 2012
    #17
  18. me

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I'm not admitting it all: I'm denying it.

    We have proxydata going back far more than 'a few thousand years' but
    what can be inferred from this is not primary temperature data.

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 4, 2012
    #18
  19. me

    Alan Browne Guest

    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").
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 4, 2012
    #19
  20. me

    George Kerby Guest

    Eric, you are trying to use logic on a liberal lump of lignite. It just
    doesn't work: FishHead "feels" there is this 'Global Warming' and all of the
    data out there to the contrary just does NOT matter when a LibTard "feels"
    something to be true.
     
    George Kerby, Mar 4, 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.