Lulin on Friday nightPosted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
very nice image!!
KMM
KMM
Lulin on Friday nightPosted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
Why...Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
Jim Brown said:
Why would anyone read this forum if they don't enjoy it? Why would anyone admit publicly that they read a forum they don't enjoy? Seems odd when you could be doing something else that you enjoy more.
I enjoy this forum a lot. I like the various personalities. I like watching the interplay between extreme viewpoints, centrist viewpoints and the occasional whack-job. I learn things here. I used to like participating in a vigorous on-line fight, but I don't do that so much anymore. Sometimes on Fridays.
My actual political view point has been changed on certain important issues by thoughtful posts here.
I even have come to think of many participants as "friends." I miss them when they leave the forum. Odd isn't it?
I would suggest that if one considers the Astromart politics forum unenjoyable or a waste of time, they use the "hide forum" button. It is pretty easy to do.
Jim
Astro-Club ManagementPosted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
Alex McConahay said:
I've been asked to put together (for RTMC Astronomy Expo) a panel of local club officers to talk about issues, resources, programs.....common to all astro-clubs.
As moderator, I would like to be able to ask important questions that everybody wants to know the answers to.
What questions should be asked of this panel?
Alex
Any Good Binocular Targets this week?Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
Lee Spain said:
If I were to find a relatively dark spot in central Georgia and dare to get out of my car, can any body suggest a good handheld binocular target? I've got 50mm Celestrons with built in skyglow filters. 8O
Greenhouse Effect a Ficticious Physical MechanismPosted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
NYT Admits Wrong about 1995 Climate CoalitionPosted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
Dave Snope said:
Ooops, wasn't I just saying in that other Gore thread that the 1995 stuff is bad? Even the NY Times has to admit it when caught by scientists.
Washington, DC – The New York Times has issued a “climate correction” for an “error” in its April 24, 2009 (posted online April 23) high profile front page global warming article that was touted by former Vice President Al Gore during his Congressional testimony as evidence that industry was clouding the science of climate change. [ See: Gore Mouthing-Off About Make-Believe Madoffs ]
But just little more than a week after publishing the front page article, The New York Times and reporter Andrew Revkin have now admitted the article “erred” on a key point. Revkin wrote about the now defunct Global Climate Coalition and documents that suggest the group had scientists on board in the 1990's who claimed “the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.” Revkin's article came under immediate fire from scientists and others who called into question the central claims and the accuracy of the story.
In a May 2, 2009 post titled “A Climate Correction”, Revkin and the New York Times wrote: “The article cited a 'backgrounder' that laid out the coalition's public stance, published in the early 1990s and distributed widely to lawmakers and journalists. However, the article failed to note a later version of the backgrounder that included language that conformed to the scientific advisory committee's conclusion. The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was 'the rate and magnitude of the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' (warming) that will result.'"
NASA FY 2010 Budget RequestPosted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
K. Michael Malolepszy said:
NASA FY 2010 Budget Request has been posted (May 7, 2009) at:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
external tank moviePosted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
Maurice Clark said:
Hi all,
Here is a movie of the shuttle external tank below the shuttle and heading towards the Earth.
Not bad.
http://thespacewriter.com/wp/2009/05/12/tanks-for-the-memories/
Cheers,
Maurice
CNN talks to Dr. Christy, and Dr. Hansen tooPosted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
GCM accuracyPosted By K. Michael Malolepszy |
Mark Norby said:
A few yrs ago I read several articles/papers describing GCMs as very innacurate-for various reasons. Have there been any advances lately that have accurately "predicted" or "projected" during the last few yrs? What I mean is, has a GCM from, say, 2005 projected atmospheric CO2 accurately-verified by observation? How about temps, El Nino/Nina, etc. Also, are there separate GCMs for Northern and Southern Hemispheres? In a similar topic; how about Arctic ice/Antarctic ice grown and recession? Projections verified by observaions?