Patrick's 2nd HH data (long post)
I gave Patrick’s 2nd batch of the HorseHead data a shot.
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1173
ONLY READ ON IF you are interested in MaxIM DL and PhotoShop image processing.
I will try to give full disclosure here. First of all, obviously Tyler is the target; in other words he has set the standard. So I downloaded a copy of his HH image processed data as contained in Patrick’s (his data) gallery site: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1025 . I used that image as a model just to look at and see if I could come close to it with Patrick’s 2nd batch of data.
I used Joe’s way of processing as follows.
1 - I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it.
2 - Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more
than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it
to other views from the same session.
3 - Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to
make all the clears about the same.
4 - I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be
taking a medium of the images.
5 - I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green.
6 - Finally I Color Combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the
brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL (Max).
<End Joe’s Way>
I did 3 additional things in Max before saving the image as a TIFF. If the image is saved in Max at that point and brought into PhotoShop (PS) then you have a black image. The image has to be stretched using curves and levels to see anything because of the way Max and PS approach things differently. So, I used Max to stretch the data first because when comparing the two I felt Max did a better job for the initial stretch than PS. Here is what I did.
(I am going into detail because this is a learning thing. Also if there is a better way, maybe Tyler can set us straight.)
1 – In the Screen Stretch box I manually stretched the right had carrot as far to the right as I could without clipping any star data.
2 – In Max I selected menu item Process > Stretch and set these parameters Linear Only, Screen Stretch, and 16-bit and clicked OK.
3 – Again in Max I selected menu item Process > Stretch again and set these parameters Gamma (0.5), Max Pixel, and 16-bit and clicked OK.
Then I saved the image as a TIFF for Photoshop.
>From here on it gets fuzzy because I did a lot of playing around.
In PS the image will still be a little dark. So Using Tyler’s image as a guide I used curves and levels in the RGB to bring up the contrast and brightness in moderate steps keeping an eye on the histogram to be sure I wasn’t clipping data. When you see the combing effect in the histogram you know you are stretching the data pretty far. The noise will also increase as you boost the brightness and contrast. When I got the image to about what Tyler’s brightness looked like then I went into the Blue level and just stretched it a bit to give the background a bit more of a blue hue than straight black.
Now I checked Tyler’s image and noticed his stars were smaller than mine. Size matters, so I created a mask for just the big stars by :
1. Creating a duplicate image and doing a Hi-pass filter with threshold = 1
2. Did a Gaussian blur with threshold = 1
3. Went into Image > Adjust > Threshold and played with the slider till mostly the big stars were left. I cloned out anything I didn’t want till I had the mask I wanted.
4. Then I did a menu Select >All, then Edit > Copy.
5. In the original image I created a duplicate layer of the original image, then went to the channels tab and created a new channel. I pasted the mask into the new color channel. I then clicked on the eye of the RGB channel to reveal the image, then went back to the adjustment layer and clicked on it. From there I went to the menu items. I clicked on Select > Load Selection and lo-and-behold all my big stars were selected.
6. With the big stars selected I enlarged the image to get a closer look at the selection. The selection wasn’t big enough so I went to menu item Select > Mofiy > Expand and increased the size of the selection by 1 pixel.
7. Satisfied with the selection I went to menu Filter > Other > Minimum and it shrank the stars.
If you look at some of the stars you will see a halo around them. I don’t have this process down perfect yet.
I felt my image was looking pretty good at this point but Tyler’s image was much smoother. Being this close I had to go all the way, so I went out on the web and bought NeatImage as a plug-in to PS. Once I applied NeatImage I felt it smoothed out the noise very well and can give Tyler a run for his money. That may have sounded boastful but it was meant as a thank you for helping us overcome the huge learning curve in image processing. And no less thanks to Patrick and Joe and all of you who have added your input to help us fledglings along.
Jim
In combining, I think the sum method would be better if I had been more careful to pick out the bad pixels. But without taking care in the pixel department, when I summed all the hot pixels showed up in the finished product. That's why I went with "median" -- but at other times sigma clip might be best. This is one part where I'm hazy. I think it's a matter of testing for each situation. -- Joe
--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Patrick's 2nd HH data (long post)
To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com>
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 8:23 AM
I gave Patrick’s 2nd batch of the HorseHead data a shot.
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1173
ONLY READ ON IF you are interested in MaxIM DL and PhotoShop image processing.
I will try to give full disclosure here. First of all, obviously Tyler is the
target; in other words he has set the standard. So I downloaded a copy of his HH
image processed data as contained in Patrick’s (his data) gallery site:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1025 . I used that image as a
model just to look at and see if I could come close to it with Patrick’s 2nd
batch of data.
I used Joe’s way of processing as follows.
1 - I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it.
2 - Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid
of bad pixels, some of which were in more
than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply
it
to other views from the same session.
3 - Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an
"equalize screen stretch" button to
make all the clears about the same.
4 - I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think
the best one turned out to be
taking a medium of the images.
5 - I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it
was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green.
6 - Finally I Color Combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed
about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the
brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL (Max).
<End Joe’s Way>
I did 3 additional things in Max before saving the image as a TIFF. If the
image is saved in Max at that point and brought into PhotoShop (PS) then you
have a black image. The image has to be stretched using curves and levels to see
anything because of the way Max and PS approach things differently. So, I used
Max to stretch the data first because when comparing the two I felt Max did a
better job for the initial stretch than PS. Here is what I did.
(I am going into detail because this is a learning thing. Also if there is a
better way, maybe Tyler can set us straight.)
1 – In the Screen Stretch box I manually stretched the right had carrot as
far to the right as I could without clipping any star data.
2 – In Max I selected menu item Process > Stretch and set these parameters
Linear Only, Screen Stretch, and 16-bit and clicked OK.
3 – Again in Max I selected menu item Process > Stretch again and set
these parameters Gamma (0.5), Max Pixel, and 16-bit and clicked OK.
Then I saved the image as a TIFF for Photoshop.
>From here on it gets fuzzy because I did a lot of playing around.
In PS the image will still be a little dark. So Using Tyler’s image as a
guide I used curves and levels in the RGB to bring up the contrast and
brightness in moderate steps keeping an eye on the histogram to be sure I
wasn’t clipping data. When you see the combing effect in the histogram you
know you are stretching the data pretty far. The noise will also increase as you
boost the brightness and contrast. When I got the image to about what Tyler’s
brightness looked like then I went into the Blue level and just stretched it a
bit to give the background a bit more of a blue hue than straight black.
Now I checked Tyler’s image and noticed his stars were smaller than mine.
Size matters, so I created a mask for just the big stars by :
1. Creating a duplicate image and doing a Hi-pass filter with threshold = 1
2. Did a Gaussian blur with threshold = 1
3. Went into Image > Adjust > Threshold and played with the slider till
mostly the big stars were left. I cloned out anything I didn’t want till I had
the mask I wanted.
4. Then I did a menu Select >All, then Edit > Copy.
5. In the original image I created a duplicate layer of the original image,
then went to the channels tab and created a new channel. I pasted the mask into
the new color channel. I then clicked on the eye of the RGB channel to reveal
the image, then went back to the adjustment layer and clicked on it. From there
I went to the menu items. I clicked on Select > Load Selection and
lo-and-behold all my big stars were selected.
6. With the big stars selected I enlarged the image to get a closer look at the
selection. The selection wasn’t big enough so I went to menu item Select >
Mofiy > Expand and increased the size of the selection by 1 pixel.
7. Satisfied with the selection I went to menu Filter > Other > Minimum
and it shrank the stars.
If you look at some of the stars you will see a halo around them. I don’t
have this process down perfect yet.
I felt my image was looking pretty good at this point but Tyler’s image was
much smoother. Being this close I had to go all the way, so I went out on the
web and bought NeatImage as a plug-in to PS. Once I applied NeatImage I felt
it smoothed out the noise very well and can give Tyler a run for his money.
That may have sounded boastful but it was meant as a thank you for helping us
overcome the huge learning curve in image processing. And no less thanks to
Patrick and Joe and all of you who have added your input to help us fledglings
along.
Jim
_______________________________________________
Utah-Astronomy mailing list
Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com
Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts: http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301 -- Thanks, Joe
Hi Joe, The last line of your piece brought to mind the whole Gaya idea where if we humans become too much of a pest the Earth will see we are "replaced". patrick :) On 01 Mar 2009, at 21:45, Joe Bauman wrote:
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301
-- Thanks, Joe
Good article Joe. I believe that solar activity is the primary driver of global warming and cooling. I hope we don't go into another mini Ice Age and there is some reason for optimism as the solar scientists suggest. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling? Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts: http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301 -- Thanks, Joe _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
From 1645 to 1715, the deepest freeze, "there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity." This lack of sunspots is called the Maunder Minimum, when astronomers "observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period." Three decades usually see 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots, it adds. More sunspots are associated with a greater heat output from the sun; fewer seem to be tied to less heat.
I found this interesting, I was unaware that sun spot activity was monitored in the 1600's. When were solar filters developed? Any thoughts? Good article Joe. I believe that solar activity is the primary driver of
global warming and cooling. I hope we don't go into another mini Ice Age and there is some reason for optimism as the solar scientists suggest.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling?
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301
-- Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hello all! I'm ready to stop reporting speculation and non-science with regard to our Sun being the source of recent climate change. Are you? I recently attended a NASA & NPS conference on global climate change and much of week focused on debunking myths. One of many being the "Sun-blame-claim." Solar scientist Dr. Eric Christian classified the validity of these myths as, "Lies and Damned Lies." Then he went on to bombard us with tons of supporting data and graphs, as did Dr. Robert F Cahalan, head of Goddard's Climate and Radiation Branch - the workshop's Keynote Speaker. I attached a few of these graphs to hopefully generate some tough questions. (Email me if you want either of their complete powerpoints. Send me a blank DVD if you want a video recording of their entire presentations.) Unless we ask ourselves, and each other tough questions, we will only believe in what we want to believe in. Amateur astronomers naturally want to believe the Sun is a key factor in global climate change because stars are our hobby = comfort zone. Park Ranger's like me want to believe it's caused by environmental apathy and corporate greed because it empowers us to be part of the solution -- preservation and conservation being what we teach/do/live. YET, what all of us "we" believe doesn't really matter. What has been scientifically measured does. Incidentally, this will also be a topic of discussion at Bryce Astronomy Festival refresher training. If your beliefs are such that you don't want to contemplate such tough questions then you can be excused. If like Don Colton suggests you also think a dialogue should be opened on this issue then please come prepared to listen, question, and even argue (the later when managed is truly what advances science). Indeed if you want, consider this "disclosure" -- a preview of what I'm going to argue so that you can start building counter arguments and come prepared. *Total Solar Irradiance.jpg* A variety of instruments show cyclical temp variation AND all show decrease in last 8 years. The Sun is the only thing in the global climate change system without a lag time, unless you consider 300,000 km/s a lag time. This is to say that our Sun's impacts are immediate. So who cares if 2008 wasn't as abnormally hot as other years since 2000? *Real question is: Why have all the other 7 years since 2000 been hotter if Solar Irradiance is on decline since 2000?* *Decline in Solar Wind.jpg* Ulysses (NASA & ESA) orbiting Sun at Jupiter distance, but nearly perpendicular to ecliptic, has measured, at it's extreme distance, a big decrease in solar wind --transcending the normal flux of 11 year solar cycle. *Question: If the most recent solar cycle is consistently less energetic than last solar cycle, why aren't we experiencing a corresponding rate of global cooling? * *Earth Locations of Greatest Temp Change.jpg* Greatest temperature increase vs 30 year average has occurred in highest latitudes - not where sun "hits" the hardest = equator, but annual average solar impact is the least - highest latitudes. High latitudes have lower average annual input because atmospheric deflection, axis tilt, and high albedo due to snow. *Question: If our Sun is the global warming culprit why where its yearly average input is the least, is the measured warming the most? * *Temp Change at Atmospheric Altitudes.jpg* For past 25 years, with little flux, highest portion of atmosphere, where temperature is most controlled by solar input has steadily decreased in temperature by 4 degrees C! But stratosphere (low level) and mid levels - though with big flux - are maintaining temperature or slowing very slight increase. Volcanic eruptions (E=El Chichon, P=Pinatubo) create spikes of temperature in the stratosphere but they attenuate quickly with time and altitude. *Question: "After ruling out volcanoes, what else could be causing lower atmosphere temp to remain stable when decreased solar activity is causing cooling at upper levels?"* So if our Sun is scientifically shown to not be creating global warming AND indeed suggests that by pure luck it appears that our Sun is mercifully decreasing its input (working against global climate change) during this time of significant temp increase, then what else could be causing it? If for whatever belief based reason (guilt, obligation of life alerting behavioral changes, denial, etc) you're still not ready to consider anthropogenic contributions being the primary determining factor this next graph dispels the myths of two other big "excuses" ** *Temp vs ENSO & Volcanic AND Temp vs Anthro gases & Solar.jpg* Note: ENSO = El Nino-Southern Oscillation (weather flux due to ocean current cycles that are also determined in part by solar inputs). Graphs show surface level temperature increase that is NOT ONLY inconsistent with solar input but also the other "excuses" like Volcanic eruptions, El Nino / La Nina. Keep in mind these are combined affects. This is to say that even when you combine impacts of volcanics AND ENSO it still doesn't explain increase in temp! AND anthropogenic gases are so overwhelmingly deterministic that when you add in a decrease in solar (working against temp increase) you still get a better temperature correlation. That should make you say "Wow!" or at least "Hmmmm?" *Question: What else can we blame (besides human activity - if beliefs prevent asking that question) after we've ruled out the big three: Sun, Volcanic activity, ENSO? * *Here's the question I like to ask: "How screwed are we going to be when our Sun increases its energy production to normal and especially above normal levels?"* Also keep in mind that "the primary determining factor" DOES NOT mean biggest contributor of carbon. Although all of the natural sources of greenhouse gases combined may be greater than human output, all of the natural sources also come with natural carbon sinks. We humans don't make carbon sinks to mitigate our carbon output -- indeed instead we destroy the health of nature's carbon sinks: oceans and forests. So this means WE ARE the determining factor. Imagine two kids balanced on a teeter-totter. When the proverbial moth of Chaos theory lands to the left of center on the teeter-totter, the moth is what caused the imbalance. It doesn't really matter how much heavier than the moth either of the children are because they - like our planet's robust climate system - were previously in balance (even if a dynamic balance). When it comes to global climate change wouldn't it be easier to reposition the moth than it would be the weight and or distance (torque created by) of the two kids? So unless you know something overwhelmingly significant and unquestionably credible that NASA, ESA, NOAA, and a multitude of other scientists that form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't know or has wrong, it's probably in your best interest to stop suggesting that our Sun might be the cause of the recently observed and measured global climate change. Doing otherwise might make you seem uninformed and/or impartial, which is inexcusable for a scientist, but also unflattering to "citizen scientists." And am I wrong to assume that like park rangers, SLAS members also aspire to be something like "citizen scientists?" And finally if you've ever wondered about these overly publicized 3000+ scientists that have signed the infamous petition that states that global climate change isn't human caused, they are known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Check out their website: http://www.oism.org/ I think the photo on the homepage says it all - 3 guys standing in front of an aluminum barn with a hand painted sign. Incidentally they have no students, but claim 5 faculty although the nobel prize winner died in 2006. They also specialize in curriculum for how to survive nuclear war. Which I'm told (certainly not my field of study) is actually more in line with mainstream (if such a thing exist) in that field than their "teachings" on global climate change. However, to prove a point, I will soon join their ranks! As I stated (lied in the name of exposing bigger lies) on my mail-in petition form to OISM, I have PhDs in Astrophysics, Ecology, and Atmospheric Chemistry - all from Southern Utah University - which if anybody took 10 seconds to check, I of course do not. Not only have not a single credit from that school, SUU does not even offer majors in those subjects, let alone PhD programs. Yet hopefully, by the astronomy festival I'll be able to show you their website proclaiming my bogus credentials as part of their petition of 3000+ "scientists." Thanks for you time and consideration, both are greatly appreciated. - Kevin On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From 1645 to 1715, the deepest freeze, "there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity." This lack of sunspots is called the Maunder Minimum, when astronomers "observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period." Three decades usually see 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots, it adds. More sunspots are associated with a greater heat output from the sun; fewer seem to be tied to less heat.
I found this interesting, I was unaware that sun spot activity was monitored in the 1600's. When were solar filters developed?
Any thoughts?
Good article Joe. I believe that solar activity is the primary driver of
global warming and cooling. I hope we don't go into another mini Ice Age and there is some reason for optimism as the solar scientists suggest.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling?
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301
-- Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c)
Kevin, Thanks for weighing in with real information. I am amazed that the denial of global warming has gained such a foothold. Constant comments that suggest the jury is still out have really swayed people. It seems to me that many people view it as a political issue rather than a scientific one. This is not a Republican versus Democrat issue folks. We know the effects of greenhouse gases with certainty. We also know that we are releasing massive amounts of carbon that have been stored by the earth for millions of years. Is it really so hard to accept that it is having an affect on our atmosphere? Not to me. The data is overwhelming. I agree that very few things in life are absolute certainties, but I think it is appropriate to act when the data are this convincing and the potential outcomes so severe. Thanks again for the info, Tyler _____________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Poe Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 1:07 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling? Hello all! I'm ready to stop reporting speculation and non-science with regard to our Sun being the source of recent climate change. Are you? I recently attended a NASA & NPS conference on global climate change and much of week focused on debunking myths. One of many being the "Sun-blame-claim." Solar scientist Dr. Eric Christian classified the validity of these myths as, "Lies and Damned Lies." Then he went on to bombard us with tons of supporting data and graphs, as did Dr. Robert F Cahalan, head of Goddard's Climate and Radiation Branch - the workshop's Keynote Speaker. I attached a few of these graphs to hopefully generate some tough questions. (Email me if you want either of their complete powerpoints. Send me a blank DVD if you want a video recording of their entire presentations.) Unless we ask ourselves, and each other tough questions, we will only believe in what we want to believe in. Amateur astronomers naturally want to believe the Sun is a key factor in global climate change because stars are our hobby = comfort zone. Park Ranger's like me want to believe it's caused by environmental apathy and corporate greed because it empowers us to be part of the solution -- preservation and conservation being what we teach/do/live. YET, what all of us "we" believe doesn't really matter. What has been scientifically measured does. Incidentally, this will also be a topic of discussion at Bryce Astronomy Festival refresher training. If your beliefs are such that you don't want to contemplate such tough questions then you can be excused. If like Don Colton suggests you also think a dialogue should be opened on this issue then please come prepared to listen, question, and even argue (the later when managed is truly what advances science). Indeed if you want, consider this "disclosure" -- a preview of what I'm going to argue so that you can start building counter arguments and come prepared. *Total Solar Irradiance.jpg* A variety of instruments show cyclical temp variation AND all show decrease in last 8 years. The Sun is the only thing in the global climate change system without a lag time, unless you consider 300,000 km/s a lag time. This is to say that our Sun's impacts are immediate. So who cares if 2008 wasn't as abnormally hot as other years since 2000? *Real question is: Why have all the other 7 years since 2000 been hotter if Solar Irradiance is on decline since 2000?* *Decline in Solar Wind.jpg* Ulysses (NASA & ESA) orbiting Sun at Jupiter distance, but nearly perpendicular to ecliptic, has measured, at it's extreme distance, a big decrease in solar wind --transcending the normal flux of 11 year solar cycle. *Question: If the most recent solar cycle is consistently less energetic than last solar cycle, why aren't we experiencing a corresponding rate of global cooling? * *Earth Locations of Greatest Temp Change.jpg* Greatest temperature increase vs 30 year average has occurred in highest latitudes - not where sun "hits" the hardest = equator, but annual average solar impact is the least - highest latitudes. High latitudes have lower average annual input because atmospheric deflection, axis tilt, and high albedo due to snow. *Question: If our Sun is the global warming culprit why where its yearly average input is the least, is the measured warming the most? * *Temp Change at Atmospheric Altitudes.jpg* For past 25 years, with little flux, highest portion of atmosphere, where temperature is most controlled by solar input has steadily decreased in temperature by 4 degrees C! But stratosphere (low level) and mid levels - though with big flux - are maintaining temperature or slowing very slight increase. Volcanic eruptions (E=El Chichon, P=Pinatubo) create spikes of temperature in the stratosphere but they attenuate quickly with time and altitude. *Question: "After ruling out volcanoes, what else could be causing lower atmosphere temp to remain stable when decreased solar activity is causing cooling at upper levels?"* So if our Sun is scientifically shown to not be creating global warming AND indeed suggests that by pure luck it appears that our Sun is mercifully decreasing its input (working against global climate change) during this time of significant temp increase, then what else could be causing it? If for whatever belief based reason (guilt, obligation of life alerting behavioral changes, denial, etc) you're still not ready to consider anthropogenic contributions being the primary determining factor this next graph dispels the myths of two other big "excuses" ** *Temp vs ENSO & Volcanic AND Temp vs Anthro gases & Solar.jpg* Note: ENSO = El Nino-Southern Oscillation (weather flux due to ocean current cycles that are also determined in part by solar inputs). Graphs show surface level temperature increase that is NOT ONLY inconsistent with solar input but also the other "excuses" like Volcanic eruptions, El Nino / La Nina. Keep in mind these are combined affects. This is to say that even when you combine impacts of volcanics AND ENSO it still doesn't explain increase in temp! AND anthropogenic gases are so overwhelmingly deterministic that when you add in a decrease in solar (working against temp increase) you still get a better temperature correlation. That should make you say "Wow!" or at least "Hmmmm?" *Question: What else can we blame (besides human activity - if beliefs prevent asking that question) after we've ruled out the big three: Sun, Volcanic activity, ENSO? * *Here's the question I like to ask: "How screwed are we going to be when our Sun increases its energy production to normal and especially above normal levels?"* Also keep in mind that "the primary determining factor" DOES NOT mean biggest contributor of carbon. Although all of the natural sources of greenhouse gases combined may be greater than human output, all of the natural sources also come with natural carbon sinks. We humans don't make carbon sinks to mitigate our carbon output -- indeed instead we destroy the health of nature's carbon sinks: oceans and forests. So this means WE ARE the determining factor. Imagine two kids balanced on a teeter-totter. When the proverbial moth of Chaos theory lands to the left of center on the teeter-totter, the moth is what caused the imbalance. It doesn't really matter how much heavier than the moth either of the children are because they - like our planet's robust climate system - were previously in balance (even if a dynamic balance). When it comes to global climate change wouldn't it be easier to reposition the moth than it would be the weight and or distance (torque created by) of the two kids? So unless you know something overwhelmingly significant and unquestionably credible that NASA, ESA, NOAA, and a multitude of other scientists that form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't know or has wrong, it's probably in your best interest to stop suggesting that our Sun might be the cause of the recently observed and measured global climate change. Doing otherwise might make you seem uninformed and/or impartial, which is inexcusable for a scientist, but also unflattering to "citizen scientists." And am I wrong to assume that like park rangers, SLAS members also aspire to be something like "citizen scientists?" And finally if you've ever wondered about these overly publicized 3000+ scientists that have signed the infamous petition that states that global climate change isn't human caused, they are known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Check out their website: http://www.oism.org/ I think the photo on the homepage says it all - 3 guys standing in front of an aluminum barn with a hand painted sign. Incidentally they have no students, but claim 5 faculty although the nobel prize winner died in 2006. They also specialize in curriculum for how to survive nuclear war. Which I'm told (certainly not my field of study) is actually more in line with mainstream (if such a thing exist) in that field than their "teachings" on global climate change. However, to prove a point, I will soon join their ranks! As I stated (lied in the name of exposing bigger lies) on my mail-in petition form to OISM, I have PhDs in Astrophysics, Ecology, and Atmospheric Chemistry - all from Southern Utah University - which if anybody took 10 seconds to check, I of course do not. Not only have not a single credit from that school, SUU does not even offer majors in those subjects, let alone PhD programs. Yet hopefully, by the astronomy festival I'll be able to show you their website proclaiming my bogus credentials as part of their petition of 3000+ "scientists." Thanks for you time and consideration, both are greatly appreciated. - Kevin On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From 1645 to 1715, the deepest freeze, "there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity." This lack of sunspots is called the Maunder Minimum, when astronomers "observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period." Three decades usually see 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots, it adds. More sunspots are associated with a greater heat output from the sun; fewer seem to be tied to less heat.
I found this interesting, I was unaware that sun spot activity was monitored in the 1600's. When were solar filters developed?
Any thoughts?
Good article Joe. I believe that solar activity is the primary driver of
global warming and cooling. I hope we don't go into another mini Ice Age and there is some reason for optimism as the solar scientists suggest.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling?
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301
-- Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c)
The Earth isn't the only planet that is experiencing a warming effect. It seems as though our little red cousin at 1.5 AU is undergoing the same thing minus any human activity http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece --- On Wed, 3/4/09, Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> wrote: From: Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling? To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 1:07 AM Hello all! I'm ready to stop reporting speculation and non-science with regard to our Sun being the source of recent climate change. Are you? I recently attended a NASA & NPS conference on global climate change and much of week focused on debunking myths. One of many being the "Sun-blame-claim." Solar scientist Dr. Eric Christian classified the validity of these myths as, "Lies and Damned Lies." Then he went on to bombard us with tons of supporting data and graphs, as did Dr. Robert F Cahalan, head of Goddard's Climate and Radiation Branch - the workshop's Keynote Speaker. I attached a few of these graphs to hopefully generate some tough questions. (Email me if you want either of their complete powerpoints. Send me a blank DVD if you want a video recording of their entire presentations.) Unless we ask ourselves, and each other tough questions, we will only believe in what we want to believe in. Amateur astronomers naturally want to believe the Sun is a key factor in global climate change because stars are our hobby = comfort zone. Park Ranger's like me want to believe it's caused by environmental apathy and corporate greed because it empowers us to be part of the solution -- preservation and conservation being what we teach/do/live. YET, what all of us "we" believe doesn't really matter. What has been scientifically measured does. Incidentally, this will also be a topic of discussion at Bryce Astronomy Festival refresher training. If your beliefs are such that you don't want to contemplate such tough questions then you can be excused. If like Don Colton suggests you also think a dialogue should be opened on this issue then please come prepared to listen, question, and even argue (the later when managed is truly what advances science). Indeed if you want, consider this "disclosure" -- a preview of what I'm going to argue so that you can start building counter arguments and come prepared. *Total Solar Irradiance.jpg* A variety of instruments show cyclical temp variation AND all show decrease in last 8 years. The Sun is the only thing in the global climate change system without a lag time, unless you consider 300,000 km/s a lag time. This is to say that our Sun's impacts are immediate. So who cares if 2008 wasn't as abnormally hot as other years since 2000? *Real question is: Why have all the other 7 years since 2000 been hotter if Solar Irradiance is on decline since 2000?* *Decline in Solar Wind.jpg* Ulysses (NASA & ESA) orbiting Sun at Jupiter distance, but nearly perpendicular to ecliptic, has measured, at it's extreme distance, a big decrease in solar wind --transcending the normal flux of 11 year solar cycle. *Question: If the most recent solar cycle is consistently less energetic than last solar cycle, why aren't we experiencing a corresponding rate of global cooling? * *Earth Locations of Greatest Temp Change.jpg* Greatest temperature increase vs 30 year average has occurred in highest latitudes - not where sun "hits" the hardest = equator, but annual average solar impact is the least - highest latitudes. High latitudes have lower average annual input because atmospheric deflection, axis tilt, and high albedo due to snow. *Question: If our Sun is the global warming culprit why where its yearly average input is the least, is the measured warming the most? * *Temp Change at Atmospheric Altitudes.jpg* For past 25 years, with little flux, highest portion of atmosphere, where temperature is most controlled by solar input has steadily decreased in temperature by 4 degrees C! But stratosphere (low level) and mid levels - though with big flux - are maintaining temperature or slowing very slight increase. Volcanic eruptions (E=El Chichon, P=Pinatubo) create spikes of temperature in the stratosphere but they attenuate quickly with time and altitude. *Question: "After ruling out volcanoes, what else could be causing lower atmosphere temp to remain stable when decreased solar activity is causing cooling at upper levels?"* So if our Sun is scientifically shown to not be creating global warming AND indeed suggests that by pure luck it appears that our Sun is mercifully decreasing its input (working against global climate change) during this time of significant temp increase, then what else could be causing it? If for whatever belief based reason (guilt, obligation of life alerting behavioral changes, denial, etc) you're still not ready to consider anthropogenic contributions being the primary determining factor this next graph dispels the myths of two other big "excuses" ** *Temp vs ENSO & Volcanic AND Temp vs Anthro gases & Solar.jpg* Note: ENSO = El Nino-Southern Oscillation (weather flux due to ocean current cycles that are also determined in part by solar inputs). Graphs show surface level temperature increase that is NOT ONLY inconsistent with solar input but also the other "excuses" like Volcanic eruptions, El Nino / La Nina. Keep in mind these are combined affects. This is to say that even when you combine impacts of volcanics AND ENSO it still doesn't explain increase in temp! AND anthropogenic gases are so overwhelmingly deterministic that when you add in a decrease in solar (working against temp increase) you still get a better temperature correlation. That should make you say "Wow!" or at least "Hmmmm?" *Question: What else can we blame (besides human activity - if beliefs prevent asking that question) after we've ruled out the big three: Sun, Volcanic activity, ENSO? * *Here's the question I like to ask: "How screwed are we going to be when our Sun increases its energy production to normal and especially above normal levels?"* Also keep in mind that "the primary determining factor" DOES NOT mean biggest contributor of carbon. Although all of the natural sources of greenhouse gases combined may be greater than human output, all of the natural sources also come with natural carbon sinks. We humans don't make carbon sinks to mitigate our carbon output -- indeed instead we destroy the health of nature's carbon sinks: oceans and forests. So this means WE ARE the determining factor. Imagine two kids balanced on a teeter-totter. When the proverbial moth of Chaos theory lands to the left of center on the teeter-totter, the moth is what caused the imbalance. It doesn't really matter how much heavier than the moth either of the children are because they - like our planet's robust climate system - were previously in balance (even if a dynamic balance). When it comes to global climate change wouldn't it be easier to reposition the moth than it would be the weight and or distance (torque created by) of the two kids? So unless you know something overwhelmingly significant and unquestionably credible that NASA, ESA, NOAA, and a multitude of other scientists that form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't know or has wrong, it's probably in your best interest to stop suggesting that our Sun might be the cause of the recently observed and measured global climate change. Doing otherwise might make you seem uninformed and/or impartial, which is inexcusable for a scientist, but also unflattering to "citizen scientists." And am I wrong to assume that like park rangers, SLAS members also aspire to be something like "citizen scientists?" And finally if you've ever wondered about these overly publicized 3000+ scientists that have signed the infamous petition that states that global climate change isn't human caused, they are known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Check out their website: http://www.oism.org/ I think the photo on the homepage says it all - 3 guys standing in front of an aluminum barn with a hand painted sign. Incidentally they have no students, but claim 5 faculty although the nobel prize winner died in 2006. They also specialize in curriculum for how to survive nuclear war. Which I'm told (certainly not my field of study) is actually more in line with mainstream (if such a thing exist) in that field than their "teachings" on global climate change. However, to prove a point, I will soon join their ranks! As I stated (lied in the name of exposing bigger lies) on my mail-in petition form to OISM, I have PhDs in Astrophysics, Ecology, and Atmospheric Chemistry - all from Southern Utah University - which if anybody took 10 seconds to check, I of course do not. Not only have not a single credit from that school, SUU does not even offer majors in those subjects, let alone PhD programs. Yet hopefully, by the astronomy festival I'll be able to show you their website proclaiming my bogus credentials as part of their petition of 3000+ "scientists." Thanks for you time and consideration, both are greatly appreciated. - Kevin On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From 1645 to 1715, the deepest freeze, "there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity." This lack of sunspots is called the Maunder Minimum, when astronomers "observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period." Three decades usually see 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots, it adds. More sunspots are associated with a greater heat output from the sun; fewer seem to be tied to less heat.
I found this interesting, I was unaware that sun spot activity was monitored in the 1600's. When were solar filters developed?
Any thoughts?
Good article Joe. I believe that solar activity is the primary driver of
global warming and cooling. I hope we don't go into another mini Ice Age and there is some reason for optimism as the solar scientists suggest.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling?
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301
-- Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Not much of an atmosphere either or water vs land make-up. Apples and Oranges, a completely different dynamic and animal life is not a stake. They say the effect is likely caused by dust storms changing the albedo and thereby less reflected radiation. Input needs to match output. Seems the bug a boo still remains that we are at solar minimum.
It seems as though our little red cousin at 1.5 AU is undergoing the same thing minus any human activity http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling? To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 1:07 AM
Hello all!
I'm ready to stop reporting speculation and non-science with regard to our Sun being the source of recent climate change. Are you?
I recently attended a NASA & NPS conference on global climate change and much of week focused on debunking myths. One of many being the "Sun-blame-claim." Solar scientist Dr. Eric Christian classified the validity of these myths as, "Lies and Damned Lies." Then he went on to bombard us with tons of supporting data and graphs, as did Dr. Robert F Cahalan, head of Goddard's Climate and Radiation Branch - the workshop's Keynote Speaker. I attached a few of these graphs to hopefully generate some tough questions. (Email me if you want either of their complete powerpoints. Send me a blank DVD if you want a video recording of their entire presentations.)
Unless we ask ourselves, and each other tough questions, we will only believe in what we want to believe in. Amateur astronomers naturally want to believe the Sun is a key factor in global climate change because stars are our hobby = comfort zone. Park Ranger's like me want to believe it's caused by environmental apathy and corporate greed because it empowers us to be part of the solution -- preservation and conservation being what we teach/do/live. YET, what all of us "we" believe doesn't really matter. What has been scientifically measured does.
Incidentally, this will also be a topic of discussion at Bryce Astronomy Festival refresher training. If your beliefs are such that you don't want to contemplate such tough questions then you can be excused. If like Don Colton suggests you also think a dialogue should be opened on this issue then please come prepared to listen, question, and even argue (the later when managed is truly what advances science). Indeed if you want, consider this "disclosure" -- a preview of what I'm going to argue so that you can start building counter arguments and come prepared.
*Total Solar Irradiance.jpg* A variety of instruments show cyclical temp variation AND all show decrease in last 8 years. The Sun is the only thing in the global climate change system without a lag time, unless you consider 300,000 km/s a lag time. This is to say that our Sun's impacts are immediate. So who cares if 2008 wasn't as abnormally hot as other years since 2000? *Real question is: Why have all the other 7 years since 2000 been hotter if Solar Irradiance is on decline since 2000?*
*Decline in Solar Wind.jpg* Ulysses (NASA & ESA) orbiting Sun at Jupiter distance, but nearly perpendicular to ecliptic, has measured, at it's extreme distance, a big decrease in solar wind --transcending the normal flux of 11 year solar cycle. *Question: If the most recent solar cycle is consistently less energetic than last solar cycle, why aren't we experiencing a corresponding rate of global cooling? *
*Earth Locations of Greatest Temp Change.jpg* Greatest temperature increase vs 30 year average has occurred in highest latitudes - not where sun "hits" the hardest = equator, but annual average solar impact is the least - highest latitudes. High latitudes have lower average annual input because atmospheric deflection, axis tilt, and high albedo due to snow. *Question: If our Sun is the global warming culprit why where its yearly average input is the least, is the measured warming the most? *
*Temp Change at Atmospheric Altitudes.jpg* For past 25 years, with little flux, highest portion of atmosphere, where temperature is most controlled by solar input has steadily decreased in temperature by 4 degrees C! But stratosphere (low level) and mid levels
though with big flux - are maintaining temperature or slowing very slight increase. Volcanic eruptions (E=El Chichon, P=Pinatubo) create spikes of temperature in the stratosphere but they attenuate quickly with time and altitude. *Question: "After ruling out volcanoes, what else could be causing lower atmosphere temp to remain stable when decreased solar activity is causing cooling at upper levels?"*
So if our Sun is scientifically shown to not be creating global warming AND indeed suggests that by pure luck it appears that our Sun is mercifully decreasing its input (working against global climate change) during this time of significant temp increase, then what else could be causing it?
If for whatever belief based reason (guilt, obligation of life alerting behavioral changes, denial, etc) you're still not ready to consider anthropogenic contributions being the primary determining factor this next graph dispels the myths of two other big "excuses" ** *Temp vs ENSO & Volcanic AND Temp vs Anthro gases & Solar.jpg* Note: ENSO = El Nino-Southern Oscillation (weather flux due to ocean current cycles that are also determined in part by solar inputs). Graphs show surface level temperature increase that is NOT ONLY inconsistent with solar input but also the other "excuses" like Volcanic eruptions, El Nino / La Nina. Keep in mind these are combined affects. This is to say that even when you combine impacts of volcanics AND ENSO it still doesn't explain increase in temp! AND anthropogenic gases are so overwhelmingly deterministic that when you add in a decrease in solar (working against temp increase) you still get a better temperature correlation. That should make you say "Wow!" or at least "Hmmmm?" *Question: What else can we blame (besides human activity - if beliefs prevent asking that question) after we've ruled out the big three: Sun, Volcanic activity, ENSO? *
*Here's the question I like to ask: "How screwed are we going to be when our Sun increases its energy production to normal and especially above normal levels?"*
Also keep in mind that "the primary determining factor" DOES NOT mean biggest contributor of carbon. Although all of the natural sources of greenhouse gases combined may be greater than human output, all of the natural sources also come with natural carbon sinks. We humans don't make carbon sinks to mitigate our carbon output -- indeed instead we destroy the health of nature's carbon sinks: oceans and forests. So this means WE ARE the determining factor.
Imagine two kids balanced on a teeter-totter. When the proverbial moth of Chaos theory lands to the left of center on the teeter-totter, the moth is what caused the imbalance. It doesn't really matter how much heavier than the moth either of the children are because they - like our planet's robust climate system - were previously in balance (even if a dynamic balance). When it comes to global climate change wouldn't it be easier to reposition the moth than it would be the weight and or distance (torque created by) of the two kids?
So unless you know something overwhelmingly significant and unquestionably credible that NASA, ESA, NOAA, and a multitude of other scientists that form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't know or has wrong, it's probably in your best interest to stop suggesting that our Sun might be the cause of the recently observed and measured global climate change. Doing otherwise might make you seem uninformed and/or impartial, which is inexcusable for a scientist, but also unflattering to "citizen scientists." And am I wrong to assume that like park rangers, SLAS members also aspire to be something like "citizen scientists?"
And finally if you've ever wondered about these overly publicized 3000+ scientists that have signed the infamous petition that states that global climate change isn't human caused, they are known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Check out their website:
I think the photo on the homepage says it all - 3 guys standing in front of an aluminum barn with a hand painted sign. Incidentally they have no students, but claim 5 faculty although the nobel prize winner died in
Man is insignificant on a cosmic scale not so much on a terrestrial scale. Of course we do have probes on Mars, maybe NASA is responsible. (its a joke) Thanks for the article though. BTW: Was that water the skater fell into or cement? Was very funny, looked like someone had good photo shop skills. Must have come from the liberal media. and seriously electrical conservation is very much part of the solution, this is consistent with the Dark Sky agenda (with positive economic impact). Can we all support preserving night sky? Pretty easy yes or no question. Erik The Earth isn't the only planet that is experiencing a warming effect. - 2006.
They also specialize in curriculum for how to survive nuclear war. Which I'm told (certainly not my field of study) is actually more in line with mainstream (if such a thing exist) in that field than their "teachings" on global climate change.
However, to prove a point, I will soon join their ranks! As I stated (lied in the name of exposing bigger lies) on my mail-in petition form to OISM, I have PhDs in Astrophysics, Ecology, and Atmospheric Chemistry - all from Southern Utah University - which if anybody took 10 seconds to check, I of course do not. Not only have not a single credit from that school, SUU does not even offer majors in those subjects, let alone PhD programs. Yet hopefully, by the astronomy festival I'll be able to show you their website proclaiming my bogus credentials as part of their petition of 3000+ "scientists." Thanks for you time and consideration, both are greatly appreciated.
- Kevin
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From 1645 to 1715, the deepest freeze, "there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity." This lack of sunspots is called the Maunder Minimum, when astronomers "observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period." Three decades usually see 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots, it adds. More sunspots are associated with a greater heat output from the sun; fewer seem to be tied to less heat. I found this interesting, I was unaware that sun spot activity was monitored in the 1600's. When were solar filters developed? Any thoughts? Good article Joe. I believe that solar activity is the primary driver of global warming and cooling. I hope we don't go into another mini Ice Age and there is some reason for optimism as the solar scientists suggest.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling?
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301
-- Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
"Seems the bug a boo still remains that we are at solar minimum." By all global measures we have had no global warming for the last seven years. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:50 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians
Not much of an atmosphere either or water vs land make-up. Apples and Oranges, a completely different dynamic and animal life is not a stake. They say the effect is likely caused by dust storms changing the albedo and thereby less reflected radiation. Input needs to match output. Seems the bug a boo still remains that we are at solar minimum.
It seems as though our little red cousin at 1.5 AU is undergoing the same thing minus any human activity http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling? To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 1:07 AM
Hello all!
I'm ready to stop reporting speculation and non-science with regard to our Sun being the source of recent climate change. Are you?
I recently attended a NASA & NPS conference on global climate change and much of week focused on debunking myths. One of many being the "Sun-blame-claim." Solar scientist Dr. Eric Christian classified the validity of these myths as, "Lies and Damned Lies." Then he went on to bombard us with tons of supporting data and graphs, as did Dr. Robert F Cahalan, head of Goddard's Climate and Radiation Branch - the workshop's Keynote Speaker. I attached a few of these graphs to hopefully generate some tough questions. (Email me if you want either of their complete powerpoints. Send me a blank DVD if you want a video recording of their entire presentations.)
Unless we ask ourselves, and each other tough questions, we will only believe in what we want to believe in. Amateur astronomers naturally want to believe the Sun is a key factor in global climate change because stars are our hobby = comfort zone. Park Ranger's like me want to believe it's caused by environmental apathy and corporate greed because it empowers us to be part of the solution -- preservation and conservation being what we teach/do/live. YET, what all of us "we" believe doesn't really matter. What has been scientifically measured does.
Incidentally, this will also be a topic of discussion at Bryce Astronomy Festival refresher training. If your beliefs are such that you don't want to contemplate such tough questions then you can be excused. If like Don Colton suggests you also think a dialogue should be opened on this issue then please come prepared to listen, question, and even argue (the later when managed is truly what advances science). Indeed if you want, consider this "disclosure" -- a preview of what I'm going to argue so that you can start building counter arguments and come prepared.
*Total Solar Irradiance.jpg* A variety of instruments show cyclical temp variation AND all show decrease in last 8 years. The Sun is the only thing in the global climate change system without a lag time, unless you consider 300,000 km/s a lag time. This is to say that our Sun's impacts are immediate. So who cares if 2008 wasn't as abnormally hot as other years since 2000? *Real question is: Why have all the other 7 years since 2000 been hotter if Solar Irradiance is on decline since 2000?*
*Decline in Solar Wind.jpg* Ulysses (NASA & ESA) orbiting Sun at Jupiter distance, but nearly perpendicular to ecliptic, has measured, at it's extreme distance, a big decrease in solar wind --transcending the normal flux of 11 year solar cycle. *Question: If the most recent solar cycle is consistently less energetic than last solar cycle, why aren't we experiencing a corresponding rate of global cooling? *
*Earth Locations of Greatest Temp Change.jpg* Greatest temperature increase vs 30 year average has occurred in highest latitudes - not where sun "hits" the hardest = equator, but annual average solar impact is the least - highest latitudes. High latitudes have lower average annual input because atmospheric deflection, axis tilt, and high albedo due to snow. *Question: If our Sun is the global warming culprit why where its yearly average input is the least, is the measured warming the most? *
*Temp Change at Atmospheric Altitudes.jpg* For past 25 years, with little flux, highest portion of atmosphere, where temperature is most controlled by solar input has steadily decreased in temperature by 4 degrees C! But stratosphere (low level) and mid levels
though with big flux - are maintaining temperature or slowing very slight increase. Volcanic eruptions (E=El Chichon, P=Pinatubo) create spikes of temperature in the stratosphere but they attenuate quickly with time and altitude. *Question: "After ruling out volcanoes, what else could be causing lower atmosphere temp to remain stable when decreased solar activity is causing cooling at upper levels?"*
So if our Sun is scientifically shown to not be creating global warming AND indeed suggests that by pure luck it appears that our Sun is mercifully decreasing its input (working against global climate change) during this time of significant temp increase, then what else could be causing it?
If for whatever belief based reason (guilt, obligation of life alerting behavioral changes, denial, etc) you're still not ready to consider anthropogenic contributions being the primary determining factor this next graph dispels the myths of two other big "excuses" ** *Temp vs ENSO & Volcanic AND Temp vs Anthro gases & Solar.jpg* Note: ENSO = El Nino-Southern Oscillation (weather flux due to ocean current cycles that are also determined in part by solar inputs). Graphs show surface level temperature increase that is NOT ONLY inconsistent with solar input but also the other "excuses" like Volcanic eruptions, El Nino / La Nina. Keep in mind these are combined affects. This is to say that even when you combine impacts of volcanics AND ENSO it still doesn't explain increase in temp! AND anthropogenic gases are so overwhelmingly deterministic that when you add in a decrease in solar (working against temp increase) you still get a better temperature correlation. That should make you say "Wow!" or at least "Hmmmm?" *Question: What else can we blame (besides human activity - if beliefs prevent asking that question) after we've ruled out the big three: Sun, Volcanic activity, ENSO? *
*Here's the question I like to ask: "How screwed are we going to be when our Sun increases its energy production to normal and especially above normal levels?"*
Also keep in mind that "the primary determining factor" DOES NOT mean biggest contributor of carbon. Although all of the natural sources of greenhouse gases combined may be greater than human output, all of the natural sources also come with natural carbon sinks. We humans don't make carbon sinks to mitigate our carbon output -- indeed instead we destroy the health of nature's carbon sinks: oceans and forests. So this means WE ARE the determining factor.
Imagine two kids balanced on a teeter-totter. When the proverbial moth of Chaos theory lands to the left of center on the teeter-totter, the moth is what caused the imbalance. It doesn't really matter how much heavier than the moth either of the children are because they - like our planet's robust climate system - were previously in balance (even if a dynamic balance). When it comes to global climate change wouldn't it be easier to reposition the moth than it would be the weight and or distance (torque created by) of the two kids?
So unless you know something overwhelmingly significant and unquestionably credible that NASA, ESA, NOAA, and a multitude of other scientists that form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't know or has wrong, it's probably in your best interest to stop suggesting that our Sun might be the cause of the recently observed and measured global climate change. Doing otherwise might make you seem uninformed and/or impartial, which is inexcusable for a scientist, but also unflattering to "citizen scientists." And am I wrong to assume that like park rangers, SLAS members also aspire to be something like "citizen scientists?"
And finally if you've ever wondered about these overly publicized 3000+ scientists that have signed the infamous petition that states that global climate change isn't human caused, they are known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Check out their website:
I think the photo on the homepage says it all - 3 guys standing in front of an aluminum barn with a hand painted sign. Incidentally they have no students, but claim 5 faculty although the nobel prize winner died in
Man is insignificant on a cosmic scale not so much on a terrestrial scale. Of course we do have probes on Mars, maybe NASA is responsible. (its a joke) Thanks for the article though. BTW: Was that water the skater fell into or cement? Was very funny, looked like someone had good photo shop skills. Must have come from the liberal media. and seriously electrical conservation is very much part of the solution, this is consistent with the Dark Sky agenda (with positive economic impact). Can we all support preserving night sky? Pretty easy yes or no question. Erik The Earth isn't the only planet that is experiencing a warming effect. - 2006.
They also specialize in curriculum for how to survive nuclear war. Which I'm told (certainly not my field of study) is actually more in line with mainstream (if such a thing exist) in that field than their "teachings" on global climate change.
However, to prove a point, I will soon join their ranks! As I stated (lied in the name of exposing bigger lies) on my mail-in petition form to OISM, I have PhDs in Astrophysics, Ecology, and Atmospheric Chemistry - all from Southern Utah University - which if anybody took 10 seconds to check, I of course do not. Not only have not a single credit from that school, SUU does not even offer majors in those subjects, let alone PhD programs. Yet hopefully, by the astronomy festival I'll be able to show you their website proclaiming my bogus credentials as part of their petition of 3000+ "scientists." Thanks for you time and consideration, both are greatly appreciated.
- Kevin
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From 1645 to 1715, the deepest freeze, "there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity." This lack of sunspots is called the Maunder Minimum, when astronomers "observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period." Three decades usually see 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots, it adds. More sunspots are associated with a greater heat output from the sun; fewer seem to be tied to less heat. I found this interesting, I was unaware that sun spot activity was monitored in the 1600's. When were solar filters developed? Any thoughts? Good article Joe. I believe that solar activity is the primary driver of global warming and cooling. I hope we don't go into another mini Ice Age and there is some reason for optimism as the solar scientists suggest.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling?
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301
-- Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Don, Thank you for the link to Lord Monckton's graph. May I suggest this link for a fuller view of the meaning of the good Lord's graph, and the underlying data? http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
By all global measures we have had no global warming for the last seven years. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
Without taking sides I'll say this whole discussion reminds me of the old adage I learned in accounting class: "Figures don't lie but liars figure." patrick :) On 07 Mar 2009, at 18:34, Josephine Grahn wrote:
Don, Thank you for the link to Lord Monckton's graph. May I suggest this link for a fuller view of the meaning of the good Lord's graph, and the underlying data?
http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html
Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
By all global measures we have had no global warming for the last seven years. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
It depends where you start your regression, but the last three charts from your link show a leveling off and a decline for the last two to three years. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama, when I talked to him last year did not claim a decline as does Lord Monckton but essentially no net global warming since 1998. The point is we have not had the runaway greenhouse effect projected by many in 1998. The recent leveling off and decline does correspond with the current solar minimum. The NASA data also shows this see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ A recent article in Physics Today estimates that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature. See: http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Josephine Grahn Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 6:34 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians Don, Thank you for the link to Lord Monckton's graph. May I suggest this link for a fuller view of the meaning of the good Lord's graph, and the underlying data? http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
By all global measures we have had no global warming for the last seven years. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
This evening I was sitting in the backyard, keeping an eye on Betsy the cat and the birds she was ineffectively stalking. I had brought out the largish binocs Chuck sold me, and I enjoyed looking at both Betsy and quail, pine siskins, finches. It was about 5:45 and the atmosphere was absolutely still and clear. I looked at the moon, using the binocs, and then with naked eyes (well, naked except for my glasses). For the first time I was definitely about to see a crater on the moon without magnification -- Copernicus. Its light floor stood out clearly from the darker mare regions surrounding it. I confirmed this by using the binoculars, checking back and forth several times. I could almost, but not quite, make out Tycho. I could see the curvature of the dark mare to its left, but because Tycho is surrounded by bright material I could not quite see it. If I look at the moon when the night is darker I lose most of the details because my eyes tend to make a big mess of things when I see a bright glaring orb in blackness. But the afternoon lighting, the air's transparency and stillness, and the phase of the moon combined to give me a great view. Has anyone else seen a crater on the moon without telescope or binoculars? Best wishes, Joe
Excellent report, Joe. I can see Tycho most of the time- the ray system helps accentuate it. Also Copernicus and Plato. Having the terminator close-by to add shadows helps the visibility of most "naked-eye" craters. On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Has anyone else seen a crater on the moon without telescope or binoculars?
I would also add Aristarchus, Grimaldi (during favorable librations) and Proclus on rare occasions - using it's three-vaned-spider ejecta rays to pinpoint it. Bernson might add to the list too. Dave Bennett On Mar 8, 2009, at 12:41 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Excellent report, Joe.
I can see Tycho most of the time- the ray system helps accentuate it. Also Copernicus and Plato. Having the terminator close-by to add shadows helps the visibility of most "naked-eye" craters.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Has anyone else seen a crater on the moon without telescope or binoculars?
It would be nice for Bernson to join the list. I think he has very limited on-line access. At least, I here he is slow to respond to SLAS e-mail.
I would also add Aristarchus, Grimaldi (during favorable librations)
and Proclus on rare occasions - using it's three-vaned-spider ejecta rays to pinpoint it. Bernson might add to the list too.
Dave Bennett
On Mar 8, 2009, at 12:41 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Excellent report, Joe.
I can see Tycho most of the time- the ray system helps accentuate it. Also Copernicus and Plato. Having the terminator close-by to add shadows helps the visibility of most "naked-eye" craters.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Has anyone else seen a crater on the moon without telescope or binoculars?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hi Friends, I just filed my blog. I have been disappointed not to get many responses to past blogs, so this one specifically invites comments. Please take a look: http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090308 Thanks, Joe
Joe, I gave your blog a comment and the hardest part for me was staying within 200 words. Jim --- On Mon, 3/9/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Blog resonses sought To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 12:08 AM Hi Friends, I just filed my blog. I have been disappointed not to get many responses to past blogs, so this one specifically invites comments. Please take a look: http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090308 Thanks, Joe _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Thank you, Jim. -- Joe --- On Mon, 3/9/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Blog resonses sought To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 4:29 AM Joe, I gave your blog a comment and the hardest part for me was staying within 200 words. Jim --- On Mon, 3/9/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Blog resonses sought To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 12:08 AM Hi Friends, I just filed my blog. I have been disappointed not to get many responses to past blogs, so this one specifically invites comments. Please take a look: http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090308 Thanks, Joe _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe Said:
Hi Friends, I just filed my blog. I have been disappointed not to get many responses to past blogs, so this one specifically invites comments. Please take a look:
Nice blog Joe. I added my $0.02 worth. Cheers, Tyler _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Many thanks, Tyler! -- Joe --- On Mon, 3/9/09, Tyler Allred <tylerallred@earthlink.net> wrote: From: Tyler Allred <tylerallred@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Blog resonses sought To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 8:34 AM Joe Said:
Hi Friends, I just filed my blog. I have been disappointed not to get many responses to past blogs, so this one specifically invites comments. Please take a look:
Nice blog Joe. I added my $0.02 worth. Cheers, Tyler _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe, I put in my 2 cents worth. Rodger Fry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:08 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Blog resonses sought
Hi Friends, I just filed my blog. I have been disappointed not to get many responses to past blogs, so this one specifically invites comments. Please take a look:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090308
Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Many thanks, Rodger! -- jb --- On Mon, 3/9/09, Rodger C. Fry <rcfry@comcast.net> wrote: From: Rodger C. Fry <rcfry@comcast.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Blog resonses sought To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 10:00 AM Joe, I put in my 2 cents worth. Rodger Fry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bauman" <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:08 AM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Blog resonses sought
Hi Friends, I just filed my blog. I have been disappointed not to get many
responses to past blogs, so this one specifically invites comments. Please
take a look:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090308
Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe: My unaided attempts at moon viewing included Copernicus and Kepler. Both have large ray stuctures that draw the eye right to the central crater. A note on technique: The brightness of the moon causes the pupil to contract so that the aperture of the eye is seriously reduced and resolution in lost. Try a neutral density filter, but then I guess it wouldn't really be 'naked eye" any more. Another technique is to look away from the moon until your pupil dialates the focus on a dim star, then quickly look at the moon and note the details you can see before your pupil contracts. It's only a second at most but you can see much more in the first glance before the contraction. Others have tried shielding your eye with your hand and peek through the gaps in your fingers as you more your hand back and forth. DT --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] obs report To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 8:37 PM This evening I was sitting in the backyard, keeping an eye on Betsy the cat and the birds she was ineffectively stalking. I had brought out the largish binocs Chuck sold me, and I enjoyed looking at both Betsy and quail, pine siskins, finches. It was about 5:45 and the atmosphere was absolutely still and clear. I looked at the moon, using the binocs, and then with naked eyes (well, naked except for my glasses). For the first time I was definitely about to see a crater on the moon without magnification -- Copernicus. Its light floor stood out clearly from the darker mare regions surrounding it. I confirmed this by using the binoculars, checking back and forth several times. I could almost, but not quite, make out Tycho. I could see the curvature of the dark mare to its left, but because Tycho is surrounded by bright material I could not quite see it.
If I look at the moon when the night is darker I lose most of the details because my eyes tend to make a big mess of things when I see a bright glaring orb in blackness. But the afternoon lighting, the air's transparency and stillness, and the phase of the moon combined to give me a great view.
Has anyone else seen a crater on the moon without telescope or binoculars?
Best wishes, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Daniel, Try your triangles focus mask thingy. Still naked eye! |>) Jim
Thanks! Now I'm wondering about Galileo's problems with the Inquisition and various other non-scientific types. The fact that the moon was rugged and not a perfect sphere was one of his discoveries, and he tried to show various churchmen that through his telescope. One even refused to look -- I think the idea was that if the telescope was the work of the devil, it wouldn't show the truth. BUT why couldn't people see with their own unaided eyes that the moon is not a perfect sphere? Surely those with normal vision could see the dark and light areas clearly, and even pick up a crater or two. Best wishes, Joe --- On Sun, 3/8/09, daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> wrote: From: daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] obs report To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 4:09 PM Joe: My unaided attempts at moon viewing included Copernicus and Kepler. Both have large ray stuctures that draw the eye right to the central crater. A note on technique: The brightness of the moon causes the pupil to contract so that the aperture of the eye is seriously reduced and resolution in lost. Try a neutral density filter, but then I guess it wouldn't really be 'naked eye" any more. Another technique is to look away from the moon until your pupil dialates the focus on a dim star, then quickly look at the moon and note the details you can see before your pupil contracts. It's only a second at most but you can see much more in the first glance before the contraction. Others have tried shielding your eye with your hand and peek through the gaps in your fingers as you more your hand back and forth. DT --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] obs report To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 8:37 PM This evening I was sitting in the backyard, keeping an eye on Betsy the cat and the birds she was ineffectively stalking. I had brought out the largish binocs Chuck sold me, and I enjoyed looking at both Betsy and quail, pine siskins, finches. It was about 5:45 and the atmosphere was absolutely still and clear. I looked at the moon, using the binocs, and then with naked eyes (well, naked except for my glasses). For the first time I was definitely about to see a crater on the moon without magnification -- Copernicus. Its light floor stood out clearly from the darker mare regions surrounding it. I confirmed this by using the binoculars, checking back and forth several times. I could almost, but not quite, make out Tycho. I could see the curvature of the dark mare to its left, but because Tycho is surrounded by bright material I could not quite see it.
If I look at the moon when the night is darker I lose most of the details because my eyes tend to make a big mess of things when I see a bright glaring orb in blackness. But the afternoon lighting, the air's transparency and stillness, and the phase of the moon combined to give me a great view.
Has anyone else seen a crater on the moon without telescope or binoculars?
Best wishes, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Don, I appreciate your posts as well as Rodger's, I have great respect for you both. We have been at low solar activity so some cooling would be expected. Perhaps it should be cooler. It is matter of input vs output, it seems to be tipped toward less radiation being reflected back. If the Sun is responsible for 69%, what is responsible for 31%? I will concede that the Sun is a major factor, but we have not seen a great increase only subtle. By the time that happens the game would be over. My biology professors, in the 70's, thought man had altered the carbon cycles, outside of a global warming discussion. Erik It depends where you start your regression, but the last three charts from
your link show a leveling off and a decline for the last two to three years. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama, when I talked to him last year did not claim a decline as does Lord Monckton but essentially no net global warming since 1998. The point is we have not had the runaway greenhouse effect projected by many in 1998. The recent leveling off and decline does correspond with the current solar minimum.
The NASA data also shows this see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
A recent article in Physics Today estimates that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature. See:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Josephine Grahn Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 6:34 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians
Don, Thank you for the link to Lord Monckton's graph. May I suggest this link for a fuller view of the meaning of the good Lord's graph, and the underlying data?
http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html
Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
By all global measures we have had no global warming for the last seven years. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Erik, CO2 may be responsible for the other 31 percent or other natural activities may be the cause. We have had several long term climate cycles in the past that have exceeded current warming. I still think we have a lot to learn. My main concern is it has become a political football because so much is at stake. I think we need an open debate and the media needs to report both sides of the story and the government needs to be open to funding research that may call into question CO2 as the primary cause. I think the science is far from settled and I remember the scare of the 70's as well. Paul Ehrlich (one of Al Gore's principal advisors) famously predicted the onset of mass starvation and famine during the 1970s and 1980s. Ehrlich famously lost a bet on this score with Julian Simon in no small part due to the work of Norman Borlaug who saved more lives than any person who has ever lived by developing varieties of wheat that were both high-yield and resistant to diseases. "These new strains of wheat were introduced to developing countries along with modern production and farming techniques. Thanks to these innovations, Mexico became a net wheat exporter in the early 1960s. Over that decade, both Pakistan and India saw their wheat crop double, and they became self-sufficient wheat producers by 1968 and 1974 respectively. Because the wheat crops Dr. Borlaug cultivated have shorter and stronger stalks ("semi-dwarf"), they are able to prosper even in environments where the soil is poor and where longer stalks would wilt under the weight of extra grain. Dr. Borlaug's contributions have been credited with saving the lives of over 1 billion people and are the key ingredient in what is popularly known as the "Green Revolution." His work won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970." We need to be open to continuing investigations of the climate wherever they may lead. A recent survey of climatologists found about 40 percent did not believe CO2 was the primary factor in global warming. Don -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:45 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians
Don, I appreciate your posts as well as Rodger's, I have great respect for you both. We have been at low solar activity so some cooling would be expected. Perhaps it should be cooler. It is matter of input vs output, it seems to be tipped toward less radiation being reflected back. If the Sun is responsible for 69%, what is responsible for 31%? I will concede that the Sun is a major factor, but we have not seen a great increase only subtle. By the time that happens the game would be over. My biology professors, in the 70's, thought man had altered the carbon cycles, outside of a global warming discussion. Erik It depends where you start your regression, but the last three charts from
your link show a leveling off and a decline for the last two to three years. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama, when I talked to him last year did not claim a decline as does Lord Monckton but essentially no net global warming since 1998. The point is we have not had the runaway greenhouse effect projected by many in 1998. The recent leveling off and decline does correspond with the current solar minimum.
The NASA data also shows this see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
A recent article in Physics Today estimates that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature. See:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Josephine Grahn Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 6:34 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians
Don, Thank you for the link to Lord Monckton's graph. May I suggest this link for a fuller view of the meaning of the good Lord's graph, and the underlying data?
http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html
Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
By all global measures we have had no global warming for the last seven years. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Don, Thanks for the reply.
I had a biology professor that was involved trying to get corn to in grow in Africa, his focus was what form of carbon they metabolize (it is related to the climate they live in). IE CAM, C4, or C3. Human crops are mostly C4 plants. We currently have famine in Africa, although it is true it is not world wide. I hope science can live up to future challenges. Perhaps, we unfairly concentrate on CO2 and forget some of the other gases human activity produces. CO for example. More study is needed and I hope NASA continues getting the funds to do so. Their data needs to be available to all, as I believe it is. Erik Erik,
CO2 may be responsible for the other 31 percent or other natural activities may be the cause. We have had several long term climate cycles in the past that have exceeded current warming.
I still think we have a lot to learn. My main concern is it has become a political football because so much is at stake. I think we need an open debate and the media needs to report both sides of the story and the government needs to be open to funding research that may call into question CO2 as the primary cause.
I think the science is far from settled and I remember the scare of the 70's as well. Paul Ehrlich (one of Al Gore's principal advisors) famously predicted the onset of mass starvation and famine during the 1970s and 1980s. Ehrlich famously lost a bet on this score with Julian Simon in no small part due to the work of Norman Borlaug who saved more lives than any person who has ever lived by developing varieties of wheat that were both high-yield and resistant to diseases.
"These new strains of wheat were introduced to developing countries along with modern production and farming techniques. Thanks to these innovations, Mexico became a net wheat exporter in the early 1960s. Over that decade, both Pakistan and India saw their wheat crop double, and they became self-sufficient wheat producers by 1968 and 1974 respectively. Because the wheat crops Dr. Borlaug cultivated have shorter and stronger stalks ("semi-dwarf"), they are able to prosper even in environments where the soil is poor and where longer stalks would wilt under the weight of extra grain. Dr. Borlaug's contributions have been credited with saving the lives of over 1 billion people and are the key ingredient in what is popularly known as the "Green Revolution." His work won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970."
We need to be open to continuing investigations of the climate wherever they may lead. A recent survey of climatologists found about 40 percent did not believe CO2 was the primary factor in global warming.
Don
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:45 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians
Don,
I appreciate your posts as well as Rodger's, I have great respect for you both.
We have been at low solar activity so some cooling would be expected. Perhaps it should be cooler. It is matter of input vs output, it seems to be tipped toward less radiation being reflected back.
If the Sun is responsible for 69%, what is responsible for 31%? I will concede that the Sun is a major factor, but we have not seen a great increase only subtle. By the time that happens the game would be over.
My biology professors, in the 70's, thought man had altered the carbon cycles, outside of a global warming discussion.
Erik
It depends where you start your regression, but the last three charts from
your link show a leveling off and a decline for the last two to three years. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama, when I talked to him last year did not claim a decline as does Lord Monckton but essentially no net global warming since 1998. The point is we have not had the runaway greenhouse effect projected by many in 1998. The recent leveling off and decline does correspond with the current solar minimum.
The NASA data also shows this see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
A recent article in Physics Today estimates that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature. See:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Josephine Grahn Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 6:34 PM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians
Don, Thank you for the link to Lord Monckton's graph. May I suggest this link for a fuller view of the meaning of the good Lord's graph, and the underlying data?
http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html
Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
By all global measures we have had no global warming for the last seven years. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I realize I'm a little late to the discussion here, but I would suggest you look up Monckton in Wikipedia. The guy is no scientist -- he's a conservative journalist/politician (think Rush Limbaugh). One of the claims he has made about being "peer reviewed" was refuted by the very society he cited. (He also once thought we should force everyone in society to get blood tested every month and lock up/quarantine anyone found to be infected with HiV). Meanwhile, what can we do? There are a number of good ideas in "Plan B. 3.0". I would encourage y'all to read it. I recently signed up with Utah Power for enough "green" kilowatt hours to cover my household use, FWIW. It means an extra $17/month, but if in fact they are investing that money in alternative green power I'm willing to pony up a little extra. And I've switched most of my bulbs to CFL's. I'll have to look into the LED's... --- On Sat, 3/7/09, Josephine Grahn <bsi@xmission.com> wrote:
From: Josephine Grahn <bsi@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 6:34 PM Don, Thank you for the link to Lord Monckton's graph. May I suggest this link for a fuller view of the meaning of the good Lord's graph, and the underlying data?
http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html
Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
By all global measures we have had no global warming
for the last seven
years. See
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I read the link provided by Don, concerning oil shale there was no mention about water requirements (so much for no bias). I did some quick math 1 acre/foot would yield about 4000 barrels of oil.
Thanks for the link to "Plan B" Erik
I realize I'm a little late to the discussion here, but I would suggest you look up Monckton in Wikipedia. The guy is no scientist -- he's a conservative journalist/politician (think Rush Limbaugh). One of the claims he has made about being "peer reviewed" was refuted by the very society he cited. (He also once thought we should force everyone in society to get blood tested every month and lock up/quarantine anyone found to be infected with HiV).
Meanwhile, what can we do? There are a number of good ideas in "Plan B. 3.0". I would encourage y'all to read it.
I recently signed up with Utah Power for enough "green" kilowatt hours to cover my household use, FWIW. It means an extra $17/month, but if in fact they are investing that money in alternative green power I'm willing to pony up a little extra. And I've switched most of my bulbs to CFL's. I'll have to look into the LED's...
--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Josephine Grahn <bsi@xmission.com> wrote:
From: Josephine Grahn <bsi@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Date: Saturday, March 7, 2009, 6:34 PM Don, Thank you for the link to Lord Monckton's graph. May I suggest this link for a fuller view of the meaning of the good Lord's graph, and the underlying data?
http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html
Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
By all global measures we have had no global warming
for the last seven
years. See
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Don, Wow! This thread just will not go away. :) I hate to call you out on this, but I'm sure you realize that the graph is very misleading. It omits the prior 100 years of increasing temps (with several flat periods like the last few years). Clearly, the overall trend is one of increasing global temperatures. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html I could also show a graph of my retirement account that shows a period of increase, but the overall trend is definitely downward! :) Cheers, Tyler _____________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 5:51 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians "Seems the bug a boo still remains that we are at solar minimum." By all global measures we have had no global warming for the last seven years. See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:50 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Darn Martians
Not much of an atmosphere either or water vs land make-up. Apples and Oranges, a completely different dynamic and animal life is not a stake. They say the effect is likely caused by dust storms changing the albedo and thereby less reflected radiation. Input needs to match output. Seems the bug a boo still remains that we are at solar minimum.
It seems as though our little red cousin at 1.5 AU is undergoing the same thing minus any human activity http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Kevin Poe <iamthedarkranger@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling? To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 1:07 AM
Hello all!
I'm ready to stop reporting speculation and non-science with regard to our Sun being the source of recent climate change. Are you?
I recently attended a NASA & NPS conference on global climate change and much of week focused on debunking myths. One of many being the "Sun-blame-claim." Solar scientist Dr. Eric Christian classified the validity of these myths as, "Lies and Damned Lies." Then he went on to bombard us with tons of supporting data and graphs, as did Dr. Robert F Cahalan, head of Goddard's Climate and Radiation Branch - the workshop's Keynote Speaker. I attached a few of these graphs to hopefully generate some tough questions. (Email me if you want either of their complete powerpoints. Send me a blank DVD if you want a video recording of their entire presentations.)
Unless we ask ourselves, and each other tough questions, we will only believe in what we want to believe in. Amateur astronomers naturally want to believe the Sun is a key factor in global climate change because stars are our hobby = comfort zone. Park Ranger's like me want to believe it's caused by environmental apathy and corporate greed because it empowers us to be part of the solution -- preservation and conservation being what we teach/do/live. YET, what all of us "we" believe doesn't really matter. What has been scientifically measured does.
Incidentally, this will also be a topic of discussion at Bryce Astronomy Festival refresher training. If your beliefs are such that you don't want to contemplate such tough questions then you can be excused. If like Don Colton suggests you also think a dialogue should be opened on this issue then please come prepared to listen, question, and even argue (the later when managed is truly what advances science). Indeed if you want, consider this "disclosure" -- a preview of what I'm going to argue so that you can start building counter arguments and come prepared.
*Total Solar Irradiance.jpg* A variety of instruments show cyclical temp variation AND all show decrease in last 8 years. The Sun is the only thing in the global climate change system without a lag time, unless you consider 300,000 km/s a lag time. This is to say that our Sun's impacts are immediate. So who cares if 2008 wasn't as abnormally hot as other years since 2000? *Real question is: Why have all the other 7 years since 2000 been hotter if Solar Irradiance is on decline since 2000?*
*Decline in Solar Wind.jpg* Ulysses (NASA & ESA) orbiting Sun at Jupiter distance, but nearly perpendicular to ecliptic, has measured, at it's extreme distance, a big decrease in solar wind --transcending the normal flux of 11 year solar cycle. *Question: If the most recent solar cycle is consistently less energetic than last solar cycle, why aren't we experiencing a corresponding rate of global cooling? *
*Earth Locations of Greatest Temp Change.jpg* Greatest temperature increase vs 30 year average has occurred in highest latitudes - not where sun "hits" the hardest = equator, but annual average solar impact is the least - highest latitudes. High latitudes have lower average annual input because atmospheric deflection, axis tilt, and high albedo due to snow. *Question: If our Sun is the global warming culprit why where its yearly average input is the least, is the measured warming the most? *
*Temp Change at Atmospheric Altitudes.jpg* For past 25 years, with little flux, highest portion of atmosphere, where temperature is most controlled by solar input has steadily decreased in temperature by 4 degrees C! But stratosphere (low level) and mid levels
though with big flux - are maintaining temperature or slowing very slight increase. Volcanic eruptions (E=El Chichon, P=Pinatubo) create spikes of temperature in the stratosphere but they attenuate quickly with time and altitude. *Question: "After ruling out volcanoes, what else could be causing lower atmosphere temp to remain stable when decreased solar activity is causing cooling at upper levels?"*
So if our Sun is scientifically shown to not be creating global warming AND indeed suggests that by pure luck it appears that our Sun is mercifully decreasing its input (working against global climate change) during this time of significant temp increase, then what else could be causing it?
If for whatever belief based reason (guilt, obligation of life alerting behavioral changes, denial, etc) you're still not ready to consider anthropogenic contributions being the primary determining factor this next graph dispels the myths of two other big "excuses" ** *Temp vs ENSO & Volcanic AND Temp vs Anthro gases & Solar.jpg* Note: ENSO = El Nino-Southern Oscillation (weather flux due to ocean current cycles that are also determined in part by solar inputs). Graphs show surface level temperature increase that is NOT ONLY inconsistent with solar input but also the other "excuses" like Volcanic eruptions, El Nino / La Nina. Keep in mind these are combined affects. This is to say that even when you combine impacts of volcanics AND ENSO it still doesn't explain increase in temp! AND anthropogenic gases are so overwhelmingly deterministic that when you add in a decrease in solar (working against temp increase) you still get a better temperature correlation. That should make you say "Wow!" or at least "Hmmmm?" *Question: What else can we blame (besides human activity - if beliefs prevent asking that question) after we've ruled out the big three: Sun, Volcanic activity, ENSO? *
*Here's the question I like to ask: "How screwed are we going to be when our Sun increases its energy production to normal and especially above normal levels?"*
Also keep in mind that "the primary determining factor" DOES NOT mean biggest contributor of carbon. Although all of the natural sources of greenhouse gases combined may be greater than human output, all of the natural sources also come with natural carbon sinks. We humans don't make carbon sinks to mitigate our carbon output -- indeed instead we destroy the health of nature's carbon sinks: oceans and forests. So this means WE ARE the determining factor.
Imagine two kids balanced on a teeter-totter. When the proverbial moth of Chaos theory lands to the left of center on the teeter-totter, the moth is what caused the imbalance. It doesn't really matter how much heavier than the moth either of the children are because they - like our planet's robust climate system - were previously in balance (even if a dynamic balance). When it comes to global climate change wouldn't it be easier to reposition the moth than it would be the weight and or distance (torque created by) of the two kids?
So unless you know something overwhelmingly significant and unquestionably credible that NASA, ESA, NOAA, and a multitude of other scientists that form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't know or has wrong, it's probably in your best interest to stop suggesting that our Sun might be the cause of the recently observed and measured global climate change. Doing otherwise might make you seem uninformed and/or impartial, which is inexcusable for a scientist, but also unflattering to "citizen scientists." And am I wrong to assume that like park rangers, SLAS members also aspire to be something like "citizen scientists?"
And finally if you've ever wondered about these overly publicized 3000+ scientists that have signed the infamous petition that states that global climate change isn't human caused, they are known as the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Check out their website:
I think the photo on the homepage says it all - 3 guys standing in front of an aluminum barn with a hand painted sign. Incidentally they have no students, but claim 5 faculty although the nobel prize winner died in
Man is insignificant on a cosmic scale not so much on a terrestrial scale. Of course we do have probes on Mars, maybe NASA is responsible. (its a joke) Thanks for the article though. BTW: Was that water the skater fell into or cement? Was very funny, looked like someone had good photo shop skills. Must have come from the liberal media. and seriously electrical conservation is very much part of the solution, this is consistent with the Dark Sky agenda (with positive economic impact). Can we all support preserving night sky? Pretty easy yes or no question. Erik The Earth isn't the only planet that is experiencing a warming effect. - 2006.
They also specialize in curriculum for how to survive nuclear war. Which I'm told (certainly not my field of study) is actually more in line with mainstream (if such a thing exist) in that field than their "teachings" on global climate change.
However, to prove a point, I will soon join their ranks! As I stated (lied in the name of exposing bigger lies) on my mail-in petition form to OISM, I have PhDs in Astrophysics, Ecology, and Atmospheric Chemistry - all from Southern Utah University - which if anybody took 10 seconds to check, I of course do not. Not only have not a single credit from that school, SUU does not even offer majors in those subjects, let alone PhD programs. Yet hopefully, by the astronomy festival I'll be able to show you their website proclaiming my bogus credentials as part of their petition of 3000+ "scientists." Thanks for you time and consideration, both are greatly appreciated.
- Kevin
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
From 1645 to 1715, the deepest freeze, "there is believed to have been a decrease in the total energy output from the sun, as indicated by little or no sunspot activity." This lack of sunspots is called the Maunder Minimum, when astronomers "observed only about 50 sunspots for a 30-year period." Three decades usually see 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots, it adds. More sunspots are associated with a greater heat output from the sun; fewer seem to be tied to less heat. I found this interesting, I was unaware that sun spot activity was monitored in the 1600's. When were solar filters developed? Any thoughts? Good article Joe. I believe that solar activity is the primary driver of global warming and cooling. I hope we don't go into another mini Ice Age and there is some reason for optimism as the solar scientists suggest.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:46 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Global cooling?
Hi friends, Keep up with the latest climate shifts:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090301
-- Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (14)
-
Chuck Hards -
daniel turner -
Dave Bennett -
Don J. Colton -
erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net -
Jim Gibson -
Joe Bauman -
Josephine Grahn -
Kevin Poe -
M Wilson -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney -
Rodger C. Fry -
Tyler Allred