Global warming and hurricanes...
 

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:02:50 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

snippity do da
I posted an African dust storm picture "Over There".

Mark E. Williams

Not sure where I got it but it makes nice wallpaper.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Alotta Fagina wrote:

You wrote:


Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's
like one mass of light - amazing image.

I'll find it and scan it.

http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_1996-97.gif

That's not a picture.


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...tlights1994-19
95b .j

pg

Neither is that.

How are they NOT pictures????

They're not photographs - they're generated outputs of some sort of
undefined measurement. Without at a minimum knowing precisely what
was being measured, they're no more "pictures" than are Rorschach
inkblots.

Just curious - would you consider an MRI a "picture"? How about an
X-Ray? Or an oscilloscope display? Most normal people wouldn't, even
knowing what it is those devices measure and what their outputs
represent.

I take it you didn't see this:

pic‧ture  /ˈpɪktʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[pik-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.

–noun 1. a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a
painting, drawing, photograph, etc.: I carry a picture of my grandchild
in my wallet.
2. any visible image, however produced: pictures reflected in a pool of
water.
3. a mental image: a clear picture of how he had looked that day.
4. a particular image or reality as portrayed in an account or
description; depiction; version.

They are, indeed defined as a picture.



Miami is not a red blob. It wasn't even a red blob during the "Scarface"
era. So if what you pointed to falls under the heading of "visual
representation", then it is a ****ty representation.

Not that I'd expect different from you.

Ask Kevin about his "schnapps whiskey" LMAO

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:39:14 -0500, Maynard G. Krebbs
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:02:50 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

snippity do da
I posted an African dust storm picture "Over There".

Mark E. Williams

Not sure where I got it but it makes nice wallpaper.

Amazing image.

I really wish I could take a ride on the shuttle sometime just to see
the sights.

It has to be freakin' awesome.

Have a friend who used to fly U-2's. He said was unbelievable how big a
Saharan sand storm was and now fast it moved. But was a great view from
80,000'.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

JimH wrote:
Tom Francis wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:44:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Is this a picture?
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth...almeesters.jpg

No - it's a cigar box cover.



BTW: This thread is hilarious thanks to a couple of key players who
take things too seriously! I hope they keep it up as I am having a
great time reading their replies.

Idiots are always easily amused.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
Alotta Fagina wrote:

Miami is not a red blob. It wasn't even a red blob during the "Scarface"
era. So if what you pointed to falls under the heading of "visual
representation", then it is a ****ty representation.

Not that I'd expect different from you.
If you would not call this a "picture" what would you call it?

I definitely not a liberal, so politics has nothing to do with it, but
this is a visual representation of the "light pollution" in the US. Hence
it is a "picture". One may argue that "light pollution" is not a problem,
but the expression "light pollution" is a standard term for light that
reduces your ability to see the stars and the universe. It is very
important to astronomers.

Would you call this painting a "picture"?

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Number..._i1106615_.htm

The definition "picture" includes abstract paintings.

I can't figure out if you really don't understand the definition of
"picture' or you are just tweaking Bassy. Since you find Bass such a
idiot why don't you filter him? To argue over the standard definition
"picture" really makes you look foolish instead of Bass.

It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a picture, like
a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out repeatedly, even the most
accurate photograph is merely an interpretation, just like an oil painting.


Ansel was a master of manipulating the development of photographs to
achieve the result he wanted.

Absolutely! In my opinion, the best B&W photographer ever. I've been to
many places in the Sierra's that he's photographed, with a book with
copies of his paintings to compare. Amazing.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

Alotta Fagina wrote:
You wrote:

It's possible he means that only a literal representation is a
picture, like a photograph. However, as Ansel Adams pointed out
repeatedly, even the most accurate photograph is merely an
interpretation, just like an oil painting.


Ansel was a master of manipulating the development of photographs to
achieve the result he wanted.

But he wasn't able to prevent researchers from determining the exact date
and time at which "Autumn Moon" was taken.

That's idiotic. He never even TRIED to prevent researchers from
determining the exact date and time. He simply didn't tell them.

Nothing can be determined from the red blobs AssWiper posted.

Your childish name calling once again shows you have zero credibility.
You've now sunken even lower. At first you claimed that the URL's I
posted weren't pictures!!!!!!
Now, are you REALLY saying that "nothing can be determined" from
those???? REALLY???

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

Tom Francis wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:50:18 GMT, Don White
wrote:

basskisser wrote:
Tom Francis wrote:

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:44:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Is this a picture?
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth...almeesters.jpg

No - it's a cigar box cover.

Smoking the cheap one's eh?!

Tom smokes cheap ones....no wonder they stink!

Only to the unworthy..

And they sure as hell ain't cheap. :)

They still smell like somebody trying to smoke someone's old gym socks.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:02:50 +0000, Tom Francis wrote:


Anyway, it's a picture of the East Coast taken at night - it's like
one mass of light - amazing image.

I like the picture Maynard posted. You can follow the interstates across
the country.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...s_dmsp_big.jpg

I'm not trying to change this into a political thread, but here is one of
the Korean peninsula that I also find amazing. I can see why that nutcase
Kim is so desperate.

http://i9.tinypic.com/3y448x4.jpg

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

Tom Francis wrote:
Well, it appears that "global warming" may not be the only cause of
severe hurricanes.

Imagine that - you mean it's not all "global warming"?

Nah - can't be - that doesn't fit the Al Gore Model of Doom.

http://tinyurl.com/jzxxq

That's really good news. By the way, did you know that smoking isn't
the only cause of lung cancer? If we extend the same logic, I guess we
don't have to worry about either global warming or cigarette smoking
because we would have at least some hurricanes *anyway* and thousands
of non-smokers die of lung cancer every year.

Anybody with an understanding of how and why winds of any description
occur in the atmosphere of our planet would not be reluctant to
recognize that temperature differentials are among the primary engines
of winds and storms, whether over land or sea.

Take a look at earth from outer space, particularly on the dark
(nighttime) side of the planet.
The coastlines and the plains in the industrialized areas are so
brightly lit and energized that
the glow can be seen for hundreds of miles or more. To completely
pooh-pooh global warming, one must take one of two pretty radical
positions: 1) That all of that light and associated activities
involving combustion do not change the temperature of the atmosphere
or alter the distribution of solar energy to the land, sea, and
atsmospheric gasses. Essentially, "the planet would be exactly the same
temperature if there were no industrial activity going on". Or, 2)
Increased temperatures have no effect on winds, currents, or the other
natural forces that we have come to accept as normal or at least
predictible.


Chuck, I recently read an article (can't remember the source) that
postulated that we are screwing around with mother nature and the balance of
global temperatures by fighting and prematurely extinguishing naturally
occurring forest fires. According to the author world wide wild fires
contribute to the balance of earth's temperature by adding tremendous
amounts of heat energy to the atmosphere, far more so than a bunch of light
bulbs or other forms of man-made energy conversion.

Eisboch