Image of the day

Captured by
Terry Wood

Jupiter (clearer) Nov 5th 2023 w/Mewlon 180c

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: K. Michael Malolepszy

February 24, 2009 08:28 PM Forum: Comets

Lulin on Friday night

Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy

very nice image!!

KMM

March 6, 2009 05:36 PM Forum: Politics

Why...

Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy

Agreed, Jim.

One of the reasons I read what's posted here is that there are some posts that are well thought out, even if I don't agree with them - yours being a prime example. I may not always agree with you but you do lay out your arguments in a cogent manner... like an attorney would wink

K. Michael M.

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

March 25, 2009 07:12 PM Forum: ASTRONOMY

Astro-Club Management

Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy

Are you a member of this yahoo group? If not, I'd suggest checking out the discussions there. K. Michael M.

Astro-officers

This group is a forum for Astronomy Club Officers, both past and present, to share ideas, resources, and experiences in managing an Amateur Astronomy Club. By sharing with other Astronomy Club Officers, it is hopeful that managing an astronomy club will become easier. We are also looking for ways to make amateur astronomy clubs more inviting to new members and current members.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astro-officers/?yguid=8960933

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

April 1, 2009 02:15 PM Forum: Beginning Astronomy?

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

Binoculars can be a real joy to use, especially if you have a way of mounting them on a tripod - that effectively doubles what you can see.

There are plenty of binocular object lists online;

BinoSky - best bets for stargazing with binoculars
http://www.lightandmatter.com/binosky/binosky.html

Using Binoculars - Highlights for Beginners:
http://www.fvastro.org/beginners/bino/default.htm

Binocular Astronomy Resource Page
www.uvaa.org/BinocularResources.htm

Binoculars for Astronomy:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/howto/howtoequipment/3389576.html

I've culled these springtime favorite objects of mine from some of them:

Collinder 70 (Orion's belt area). From

http://www.backyard-astro.com/deepsky/bino/02_b.html

"... a large open cluster, located around the belt of Orion. Collinder 70 includes all three belt stars: Mintaka (the Girdle), Alnilam (The string of Pearls) and Alnitak (the Belt). The cluster has a diameter of almost 3 degrees and consists of 100 stars or more. Most of them are of the 10th magnitude or brighter.

This is an object for binoculars! In a telescope you would only see a part of this magnificent deep sky object. On a clear and moonless night, seeing Collinder 70 with all it’s stars grouped around the three bright belt stars, will give you the same WOW experience as looking at the Pleiades or the Alpha Persei cluster for the first time."

and Melotte 111:

"..the Coma Star Cluster was not visible with the naked eye. After searching for a few moments, I found the star cluster in the area between Leo and Bootes with the 15 x 80 Vixen binoculars. I immediately noticed that the Coma Star Cluster is way too big for the 15 x 80 with its 3.5-degree field of view. I switched to the 7x50. The cluster just fitted into the 6-degree field of view of the Bresser. This cluster is really impressive."

and M44:

" ...This big open cluster lies at the heart of the constellation Cancer, between two stars, Gamma (?) and Delta Cancri (?). It has a diameter of more than 1.5 degrees. It is definitely a binocular object."

You can find monthly lists of binocular objects in PDF format at

http://www.fvastro.org/beginners/bino/default.htm

and from BINOCULAR OBJECTS Compiled by Karen W. Pierce ;

Andromeda

M31 – The Great Galaxy in Andromeda
The most distant object that can be seen with the naked eye, it is superb in binoculars. This galaxy is our closest neighbor, 2.2 million light years away.

NGC 752 and The Golf Club
Open cluster about 5 degrees from Gamma Andromedae. Because it is such a large object it is easier to see through binoculars than a telescope. There are about 75 stars in this cluster. Look 1 degree west of NGC 752 for a small pattern of 7 sixth and seventh magnitude stars in the shape of a golf club. NCC 752 reminds some as a golf ball next to the head of the club.

Auriga

M 36
Bright open cluster contains about 60 stars of 8th magnitude or fainter. Collectively they shine at 5th magnitude and lie 4,100 light years distant.

M37
An open star cluster about the size of the moon, it is one of the finest in the northern sky. It has at least one red giant near the center, giving the appearance of a "ruby in a field of diamonds." M37 lies about 4,600 light-years away. Binoculars will show this cluster as a misty spot. In a 6-inch telescope more than 100 stars can be seen.

M38
This small, open cluster of stars resembles an "X" when seen in wide field eyepieces. It contains about 100 stars and is about 4,200 light years away.

The Minnow
Another binocular highlight is an asterism sometimes called the Leaping minnow; a little group of 5th and 6th magnitude stars. Have you seen this cluster?

M 67
This 6th magnitude open cluster has 500 faint stars spread over ½ degree. Can be found with binoculars but easier with a small telescope. It is about 2,500 light years away.

R Cancri
A bright long-period variable; At its maximum it is magnitude 6.2. It varies down to 11.2 and back in a year.


Canes Venatici

M3
A rare gem in the northern sky, this globular cluster is some 35,000 light years away and 200 light years across. It contains perhaps 500,000 stars.

Canis Major

M41
A beautiful open cluster of about 80 stars surrounded by a rich field of background stars. This is perhaps the dimmest object visible without optical aid. Aristotle noted this object in 325 B.C. as one of the mysterious "cloudy spots" in the sky. This cluster is about 2,200 light years away.

NGC 2362
This open cluster is often overlooked but is a beautiful sight. At magnitude 4.1 it is easy to find, and is 4,600 light years away from earth.

The Boomerang
Look about 1 degree from Delta Canis Majoris for a half circle of 7 stars of 4th to 6th magnitude. It resembles a boomerang. The brightest star near the bend is Omega Canis Majoris.

Collinder 140
This bright, large open cluster is near the tip of the dog's tail. Some 30 stars of magnitude 5 to 9 are gathered here. The main ones form a narrow pattern reminiscent of the famous “Coat Hanger” asterism found in Vulpecula.

Cassiopeia

Owl Cluster - NGC 457
This is a very interesting object to see. In a small telescope some people see an Owl perched on a limb while others see E.T. This cluster is believed to be about 9,300 light years away and contains several thousands of stars.

M52
This open star cluster is large and rich, containing about 200 stars. It is magnitude 6.9 and lies 7,000 light years away.

Coma Berenices

The constellation itself has no bright stars and is hard to distinguish, but it is a remarkable area of sky and is beautiful in binoculars. One of the finest open star clusters for binoculars.

M53
This fine globular cluster is about 3 arc minutes in diameter and is located close to A!pha Comae Berenices. Similar to M13, this cluster is about 60,000 light years away and is about 8th magnitude.


Corona Borealis

Another fine binocular constellation comprised of a small semi-circle of faint stars, very distinct. It is interesting to see how rnany stars can be seen within the “Crown”. 7 x 50 binoculars reveal at least 15 stars.


Gemini

M35
This bright 5th magnitude open cluster is visible with the naked eye, is beautiful through binoculars and spectacular in a small telescope. It contains about 300 stars and is about 2,800 light years away.


Monoceros

M50
This beautiful open cluster is easy to find being 6th magnitude but is not as spectacular as others. Some of the 80 stars in this cluster are arranged in pretty arcs. This may be seen naked eye on the best of nights.

NGC 2244 and NGC 2237
Ten degrees east-southeast from Orion’s giant Betelgeuse, a narrow rectangle formed by three nearly parallel pairs of stars should be visible. These stars belong to NCC 2244, a bright but sparse open cluster that stands out nicely in any binocular. The faint haze encircling NGC 2244 is the famous Rosette Nebula, NGC 2237. Binoculars are ideal for glimpsing the low-surface-brightness of the Rosette.


The Great Nebula - M42
Plainly visible to the naked eye it can clearly be seen in binoculars in the city. M42 lies about 1,600 light years away and is over 30 light years in diameter.

M43
This is a small patch of nebulosity just north of the Orion Nebula. In fact, the M42 complex is the brightest part of a gas cloud covering the constellation of Orion at a distance of some 1,500 light years.

Perseus

M34
This bright, 5th magnitude open cluster sits in the middle of a rich field of stars. It is an interesting view through binoculars or a telescope. It contains about 80 stars and lies about 1,500 light years away.

Double cluster - NGC 869 and 884
Two of the finest examples of open clusters in the sky, are magnificent through binoculars or the low power field in a small telescope. They are at a distance of about 7,400 light years away. Beside the double cluster there are 6 other clusters that are visible in binoculars. Have you spotted them yet?

Taurus

The Pleiades - M45
Also known as The Seven Sisters, it is the most famous star clusters in the sky. On a reasonably dark night you should be able to see at least six of the stars in the Pleiades with the naked eye. Containing more than 500 stars in all, the Pleiades is about 410 light years away and covers an area four times the size of a full moon. It is best seen with binoculars.

The Hyades
Like the Pleiades, this is also an open cluster, but it is so close to us (only about 150 light years away), even when viewed with the naked eye the stars seem to be spread out. Lots of color can be seen as the individual stars are studied. Can you pick the differences out? Try enhancing the colors by slightly defocusing your binoculars.

Ursa Major

Dubhe
This bright, 1.8 magnitude star has been named as Utah's centennial star being 100 light years away.

Mizar and Alcor – “Horse and Rider”
This famous apparent double star in the middle of the dipper's handle is separated by 12 arc minutes and is possible to be seen as a pair with the naked eye. Mizar is itself a true binary star separated by 14 arc seconds.


I would also add:

Alpha Persei Association. From

http://www.lightandmatter.com/binosky/aper.html ;

" ...This is a much more impressive sight through binoculars than the more famous Double Cluster. Bright and big, this is one of those things that only binoculars are well suited for viewing."

More from http://www.lightandmatter.com/binosky/binosky.html about M47, an open cluster in Puppis;

" ...An enjoyable view even from light-polluted areas, provided that it is high enough above the horizon. The cluster is bracketed by two bright stars, of magnitudes 5.6 and 6.4. Cutting diagonally through the center is a chain of four 7th and 8th magnitude stars; the innermost two of these actually consist of a magnitude 7.9 star on top plus an unresolved pair of magnitude 7.9 stars under it. The two 5th magnitude stars are not part of the cluster."

Binocular Astronomy books of note:

Binocular Astronomy by Craig Crossen and Wil Tirion
A great general book on astronomy - covers the astronomy, mythology and binocular targets of the night sky in a very well written manner - I find it a real joy to read.

Touring the Universe through Binoculars by Phillip Harrington
A very large catalog of everything worth looking at in binoculars in the night sky for most of us - almost overwhelming in its thoroughness.

Binocular Highlights by Gary Seronik
A recent but well done addition to binocular astronomy targets - not nearly as detailed and comprehensive as Harrington's book, but will give you plenty of maps and objects to start with.


April 11, 2009 12:59 AM Forum: Global Warming - REAL or NOT

Greenhouse Effect a Ficticious Physical Mechanism

Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy

"Re#16 and Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics.

This runs to ~90 pages, the first 40 of which are devoted to proving that real greenhouses rely on cutting off convection rather than differential radiation effects! The authors seem very proud of themselves and slip in several very non scientific sneers as well. They consider the IR portion of the solar spectrum to be the same as the IR of the thermal radiation from the earth, they don’t seem to consider the TOA (top of atmosphere) at all (I may have missed it in all the verbiage).

The conclusion:

“The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2 -greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will be taught correctly and not by using award-winning “Al Gore” movies shocking
every straight physicist by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with shortwave.”

(From
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/ )

Can anyone tell us why the above comment on this paper from Realclimate is in error? KMM

More discussion of this paper at

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-300667.html

including this comment:

"{[I] claim it is riddled with errors. Rather than attempt a comprehensive rebuttal, I'll single out limited specific errors in the paper.

Here's my first.

From the arxiv preprint, top of page 65, we read:

According to the consensus among global climatologists one takes the -18oC computed from the T4 average and compares it to the fictitious Earth's average temperature of +15oC. The difference of 33oC is attributed to the natural greenhouse effect. As seen in Equation (83) a correct averaging yields a temperature of -129oC. Evidently, something must be fundamentally wrong here.
What the authors describe as the "correct" calculation is bizarre. It comes from section 3.7.4.

First, they consider the energy per unit area for each part of the globe coming from the Sun. This is done correctly. Hence the portion of the Earth which is directly facing the Sun is given a full solar constant. Higher latitudes have this scaled by the cosine. The back of the globe (night) has no radiation at all.

They compute the solar constant as σ.57804/2152, which comes to 1369 W/m2; about correct. They use a factor of 0.7 for ε (table 12 on page 64) which corresponds to the effect of albedo. Hence the incoming solar radiation is treated as 958.4 W/m2 for a plane surface facing the Sun; a reasonable figure.

They then contrast two ways to proceed. One way is to integrate the incoming energy of the surface of the globe, and then calculate a temperature which can be given to the whole globe that would radiate out that same amount of energy again. Another way to proceed is to take each point on the globe individually as having the temperature to radiate away what it receives from the Sun at that point; and then average this over the whole globe. They call this second method the "correct" method. Their so-called correct method gives a temperature of 0K absolute to the night of the planet, and a temperature of about 360K, or 87C, to the portion of the globe facing the Sun.

The authors' so-called "correct" calculation is indeed calculating an average temperature, obtained by integrating an imputed temperature over the whole globe. This integration over the surface gives a value of about 144K, or -129C for the average temperature imputed to the simple model of a globe.

The feature of this imputed temperature is that it is just what is required to radiate (as a blackbody) the radiation coming from the Sun at every point. Now this is of course not a physical model of the Earth. Points on a planet do not instantaneously achieve thermodynamic equilibrium with the Sun's incoming radiation; even the Moon, with no atmosphere and very little heat transport across the surface, does not instantly reach absolute zero on the night side! The calculation provided by the authors can be sensibly understood is a lower bound on average temperatures; assuming radiative balance with the Sun. With any sharing of heat energy around the globe, while maintaining energy balance with the Sun, will give a higher average temperature. (You can show this with Holder's inequality, also used by the authors on page 65).

Now the other extreme model is to calculate a temperature such that if every point on the globe has that same temperature, then the globe remains in energy balance. This is the calculation that the authors disparage as "incorrect". Here, you calculate the average amount of energy radiated per unit area, and find the temperature this corresponds to. This is also called the "effective" temperature. It is equal to 20.5*1.25 (1.768) times the authors' "physical" temperature. (Compare equations 81 and 83). This works out to about 255K, or -18C. You can see the numbers -129C and -18C compared in table 12.

The proper implication of these numbers is that if you integrate temperatures over the surface of a globe which is radiating away the same energy it receives from the Sun, you'll get a value more than -129C and less than -18C.

Of course, if you integrate over the Earth's surface in reality, you get a number that is substantially more than -18C! It really doesn't matter whether you integrate temperature, or the fourth power of temperature. Whichever is chosen, you'll get an average of more than -18. That is… the Earth's surface is radiating more than what is required to balance solar radiation. But this IS the effect called "atmospheric greenhouse"!

Physically, this is because we have an atmosphere, which is heated from the surface. The atmosphere is (by thermodynamics) cooler than the surface, and the radiation that escapes into space is mostly from this cooler atmosphere. This is (by the first law) in long-term balance with solar radiation. The atmosphere radiates in all directions, of course. It radiates out into space, and also down to the surface; and this means the surface gets more energy. There's the solar energy (most of which passes through the atmosphere just fine) plus also the energy radiated from the atmosphere. The surface is in balance with this total… which is more than what you'd have without an atmosphere. This is what is called the atmospheric greenhouse… a poor choice of terms given that the physics is quite distinct from a glass greenhouse; but it is certainly physically real.

At the end of section 3.7.6, page 66, the authors make two claims. The speaks of a physically incorrect assumption of radiative balance. That's ludicrous. By the first law, there is necessarily a long term balance between the energy arriving from the Sun and being radiated from the planet. It is a physically correct implication that the Earth radiates an amount of energy into space that is equivalent to that of a blackbody at -18C.

The second claim speaks of effective radiating temperature being higher than measured averages. That is correct, and the authors are the ones who do not take this into account. The measured averages over the surface of the Earth are much more than -18C. Therefore the surface is radiating more than what you would get from a globe at -18C! Therefore the energy being radiated from the Earth's surface is MORE than the energy you get from the Sun. That IS the greenhouse effect, right there.

Good grief. It staggers me that this got published, but so be it. I am pretty sure it was an invited paper which was not given the kind of thorough technical review that usually maintains the quality of a journal."


May 4, 2009 03:34 PM Forum: Global Warming - REAL or NOT

NYT Admits Wrong about 1995 Climate Coalition

Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy

Also in that NYT “climate correction”:


' The coalition did, however, as the article reported, remove from an internal report by the scientific advisory committee a section that said that “contrarian” theories of why global temperatures appeared to be rising “do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.” After the later, amended version of the backgrounder was published, the coalition continued to question the scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions could heat the planet enough to justify sharp cuts in emissions. In the 1995 report, the advisory committee had concluded that “substantially higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases” constituted a “potential threat.” '

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/a-climate-correction/?scp=1&sq=%E2%80%9CA%20Climate%20Correction%E2%80%9D&st=cse

http://tinyurl.com/dggfb8


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.'"

May 8, 2009 01:45 PM Forum: N.A.S.A.

NASA FY 2010 Budget Request

Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy

Obama reviews post-shuttle plans

The US Obama administration is taking a fresh look at what humans do in space and how they get there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8039835.stm

K. Michael Malolepszy said:

NASA FY 2010 Budget Request has been posted (May 7, 2009) at:

http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

May 13, 2009 02:31 PM Forum: N.A.S.A.

external tank movie

Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy

What's even more impressive is the SRB videos - it usually takes awhile for them to be posted since they have to fish those out of the Atlantic first to recover the tapes.

The first one below shows the SRBs from STS-119 right before they are jettisoned to when they splash down in the Atlantic. With the audio, you get a clear impression of the atmosphere's changing density - make sure your speakers aren't up too high a level, cause it's kinda scary sounding.

From STS-119:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iurxEhL4UM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LplVxoO54ko&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGkmUJJvfzw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWZxODLDFMA&feature=related



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

May 21, 2009 01:56 PM Forum: Global Warming - REAL or NOT

CNN talks to Dr. Christy, and Dr. Hansen too

Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy

Counterpoint to Christy at

Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/

There is also a thread earlier here about this:

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=647591&poll_id=&news_id=&page=


But I do understand why many are concerned about fears being overblown. But if they are, it's not clear to me that becoming more efficient in our energy usage, moving away from fossil fuels would be a bad thing.

You also have to ask - if we aren't getting to the point soon that AGW becomes a real problem, is it a good idea to keep on dumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate until we do get to the point that it IS a severe problem? What do we do then? Say, "Ooops!" ?

KMM


May 22, 2009 02:33 PM Forum: Global Warming - REAL or NOT

GCM accuracy

Posted By K. Michael Malolepszy

Mark, you might find this page from the AIP website (American Institute of Physics) of interest - it's long, has lots of references if you want to dig into it more, but definitely worth reading:

General Circulation Models of Climate

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm

One of the conclusions:

"... Those who still denied there was a serious risk of climate change could not reasonably dismiss computer modeling in general. That would throw away much of the past few decades’ work in many fields of science and engineering, and even key business practices. The challenge to them was to produce a simulation that did not show global warming. Now that personal computers were far more powerful than the most expensive computers of earlier decades, it was possible to explore thousands of combinations of parameters. But no matter how people fiddled with climate models, whether simple one- or two-dimensional models or full-scale GCMs, the answer was the same. If your model could reproduce something resembling the present climate, and then you added some greenhouse gases, the model nearly always showed serious global warming."


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?