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.

Tom Francis wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 07:45:47 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


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.

Oh I agree with you - but the atmospheric models are complicated and
the more real science we do to try and understand it, the better off
we will be.

I have never denied, at any time, that warming of the atmosphere is
part of the equation - but that's exactly the point. It's part of the
equation. Solar winds, African dust, the fluttering of butterfly
wings in New Mexico - it's very complicated. It's not just one thing.

Also, I will try and find a picture I received among a group of
pictures from STS-11 which were sent me as part of an amateur radio
package I did for the local Middle School - allowed the kids to talk
to the astronauts (that was one of the coolest things I have ever
done).

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

I'll find it and scan it.

National Geographic had a satellite photo of the eastern U.S. at night,
it was amazing. I'll try to find it.

Tom Francis wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 07:45:47 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


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.

Oh I agree with you - but the atmospheric models are complicated and
the more real science we do to try and understand it, the better off
we will be.

I have never denied, at any time, that warming of the atmosphere is
part of the equation - but that's exactly the point. It's part of the
equation. Solar winds, African dust, the fluttering of butterfly
wings in New Mexico - it's very complicated. It's not just one thing.

Also, I will try and find a picture I received among a group of
pictures from STS-11 which were sent me as part of an amateur radio
package I did for the local Middle School - allowed the kids to talk
to the astronauts (that was one of the coolest things I have ever
done).

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

I'll find it and scan it.

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

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...1994-1995b.jpg

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...1994-1995b.jpg

Neither is that.

How are they NOT pictures????

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

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

They both certainly fit #1, huh?
Opps, they both fit #2's definition also, huh?
What a dolt!

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
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...ghts1994-1995b
.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.

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

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...ghts1994-1995b
.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.

Alota,
I would consider all of those items "pictures". I would also consider a
painting a "picture". Without additional info, it would be hard to tell
which ones would be considered photographs. The dictionary would also
consider all of those items to be "pictures". For some reason you think
picture and photograph are the same. They are not.


pic?ture /?p?kt??r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pik-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur?ing.

–noun 1. a visual representation of a person, object, or scene, as a painting, drawing, photograph, etc.: I carry a picture of my grandchild in my wallet.
2. any visible image, however produced: pictures reflected in a pool of water.
3. a mental image: a clear picture of how he had looked that day.
4. a particular image or reality as portrayed in an account or description; depiction; version.
5. a tableau, as in theatrical representation.
6. motion picture.
7. pictures, Informal (older use). movies.
8. a person, thing, group, or scene regarded as resembling a work of pictorial art in beauty, fineness of appearance, etc.: She was a picture in her new blue dress.
9. the image or perfect likeness of someone else: He is the picture of his father.
10. a visible or concrete embodiment of some quality or condition: the picture of health.
11. a situation or set of circumstances: the economic picture.
12. the image on a computer monitor, the viewing screen of a television set, or a motion-picture screen.
–verb (used with object) 13. to represent in a picture or pictorially, as by painting or drawing.
14. to form a mental picture of; imagine: He couldn't picture himself doing such a thing.
15. to depict in words; describe graphically: He pictured Rome so vividly that you half-believed you were there.
16. to present or create as a setting; portray: His book pictured the world of the future

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
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...ghts1994-1995b
.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.

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



Yes. It is probably also a photograph of a picture and a photograph of
a painting, a picture of Rembrandt, and the original would be considered
a very valuable painting.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
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...ghts1994-1995b
.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.

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


Yes. It is probably also a photograph of a picture and a photograph of
a painting, a picture of a Rembrandt, and the original would be considered
a very valuable painting.

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...ghts1994-1995b
.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.

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?!