Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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!

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

"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

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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?!

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

"Tom Francis" wrote in message
...
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.

ROTF.

Some other classic pictures:

http://thefineartcompany.co.uk/Bestsellers/C365.jpg

http://www.thevelvetstore.com/Mercha...01/ve038-1.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...es-Posters.jpg

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

"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.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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!

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..


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.

Really?

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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


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.

Really?


I am sure you already know this, but others may not :
Ansel Adams and Fred Archer are credited with creating the zone system, a
technique which allows photographers to translate the light they see into
specific densities on negatives and paper, thus giving them better control
over finished photographs. Adams also pioneered the idea of visualization
(which he often called 'previsualization', though he later acknowledged
that
term to be a redundancy) of the finished print based upon the measured
light
values in the scene being photographed.
The zone system is a unique approach to film exposure and development
invented
by Ansel Adams and Fred Archer in 1939 or 1940. The zone system provides
photographers
with a systematic method of precisely defining the relationship between
the way they
see the photographic subject and the results they achieve in their
finished works.
In a sense, the zone system plays the same role that color management
does for
digital photographers. It allows for a direct correlation between the
visual world
and the final photographic print."

from Wikipedia.

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

"Alotta Fagina" wrote in message
...
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.

So what? Was it his goal to prevent researchers from making that
determination?

Global warming and hurricanes...
 

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

Try this one:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...s_dmsp_big.jpg
Mark E. Williams

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