9/22/2005: Red flash moon

[Undertoad]

wikipedia is a good source of info if you don't want to just look at the thing

[LabRat]

Well, thank you for the wikipedia referance. I too had never heard of this, and thankfully will refrain from actualy seeing the image after reading the wikipedia background. I must assume that the picture isn't photoshopeed.

O. M. G.

[wolf]

You looked, didn't you. Everybody looks. It's like the tickle on the back of your neck that won't go away, but you can't find the spider that you're sure is causing it. You keep at it and at it and at it ...

"Don't look, Marion!!"

[plthijinx]

Originally Posted by wolf

You looked, didn't you. Everybody looks. It's like the tickle on the back of your neck that won't go away, but you can't find the spider that you're sure is causing it. You keep at it and at it and at it ...

"Don't look, Marion!!"

no, actually, i didn't and after reading the description, i won't. but the visual i have leads me to think that right before he "posed" he said "HEY Y'ALL! WATCH THIS!"

Edit: damn you Wolf!

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by wolf

You looked, didn't you. Everybody looks. It's like the tickle on the back of your neck that won't go away, but you can't find the spider that you're sure is causing it. You keep at it and at it and at it ...

"Don't look, Marion!!"

I didn't look either, yay!
Maybe I'm growing up.....

Or maybe I have seen enough arseholes today - either works for me.

[glatt]

You all are going to think I have Goatse on the brain, especially after Wolf put one of my posts in the hall of fame thread.

Anyway, I just discovered (through Boing Boing) a flickr group of images of people's reactions after seeing goatse for the first time. It's very funny. Check the flickr group out. Hell, you can even join in. Surprise friends, and submit your own pictures to flickr.
Here's a funny one:

[Happy Monkey]

I would like to suggest that nobody looks up "tubgirl" either. Worse than goatse.

[wolf]

I didn't realize that had a name.

[seakdivers]

Too late.

God I hate being a curious person sometimes.

[xoxoxoBruce]

My bad.....I figured anybody thats been on the net more than a couple months would have run across Goatse at some point. Didn't realize there were so many innocents abroad.

But, but, but.....I didn't post a link.

[BigV]

In this case, I will believe what I see on the internet and preserve my goatse-tubgirl virginity. Thanks guys.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by BigV

This is the statement that I find nonsensical. I you can explain it, I'd like to hear it. If you can't, or won't, and I don't think you can, then I'll just consider the source and drop it.

I think a better wording of tw's statement would be: "Our atmosphere is getting cleaner, according to research. Since dirt particles in the air absorb light, less light is being absorbed, leaving more of it to fall upon the Earth. More light equals more heat, and more heat is sorta similar to the idea of global warming. Therefore, if we had left the dirt in the air, the planet would be warming more slowly than it is now that we're pulling all of this debris out of our atmosphere. This is ironic, because 'clean the air' and 'stop global warming' are two major goals of the environmentalists, and they are seemingly at odds. Ha, ha!"

As to the veracity of his statement, I have no fucking clue. Sounds pretty damn fishy to me. But I'm just the translator here.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I think a better wording of tw's statement would be: "Our atmosphere is getting cleaner, according to research. Since dirt particles in the air absorb light, less light is being absorbed, leaving more of it to fall upon the Earth. More light equals more heat, and more heat is sorta similar to the idea of global warming. Therefore, if we had left the dirt in the air, the planet would be warming more slowly than it is now that we're pulling all of this debris out of our atmosphere.

How much red light illuminates the moon? Depends on clarity of earth's atmosphere. "Our atmosphere is getting dirtier , according to research. Since dirt particles in the air absorb light, less light falls upon the Earth. Therefore, if we leave dirt in the air, the planet would be warming quickly as it is currently warming ." IOW global warming problem may be more serious than earlier thought. A problem masked by a dirtier atmosphere. Even with less sunlight, global warming continues.

Is more dirty air a good thing? Less light means less crops and less conversion of CO2 into O2. The short term benefits of a dirty atmosphere could have long term negative consequences for agriculture and result in more global warming gases in the long term.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

How much red light illuminates the moon? Depends on clarity of earth's atmosphere. "Our atmosphere is getting dirtier , according to research.

whatevah.

Originally Posted by tw

Since dirt particles in the air absorb light,

Light that is absorbed contributes to the net energy gain, if it's absorbed, it's warmer. Take a couple of sheets of paper, one black, one white. Lay them out in the sun for several minutes. Check the temperature of each sheet. Which one is warmer? The black one, because it ABSORBED more light, while the white one reflected more light.

Dirt in the air is a vanishingly small fraction of the light/heat absorbing components in our atmosphere. The largest contributor to absorbtion of light energy? Water vapor, followed by carbon dioxide and on down the line from there.

Originally Posted by tw

less light falls upon the Earth. Therefore, if we leave dirt in the air, the planet would be warming quickly as it is currently warming ." IOW global warming problem may be more serious than earlier thought. A problem masked by a dirtier atmosphere. Even with less sunlight, global warming continues.

Is more dirty air a good thing? Less light means less crops and less conversion of CO2 into O2. The short term benefits of a dirty atmosphere could have long term negative consequences for agriculture and result in more global warming gases in the long term.

This is the nonsense I spoke of. Are you talking about something you learned somewhere else? Or are you making it up? Or are you just trying to stir the sh*t? Cause, on it's face, this is crap. Your "conclusions" do not follow from your assumptions. For that matter, your assumptions are mostly crap too. "...there is less sunlight... ...less light falls on the earth..."

You're out of your area of expertise, tw, and it shows. This kind of behavior reminds me of the misguided people who are clamoring for ID to be considered on par with evolution, "cause, it's just a theory, you don't really know. Nyah." Puh-lease.

[mitheral]

Originally Posted by BigV

whatevah.
You're out of your area of expertise, tw, and it shows. This kind of behavior reminds me of the misguided people who are clamoring for ID to be considered on par with evolution, "cause, it's just a theory, you don't really know. Nyah." Puh-lease.

I believe tw is talking about
Global Dimming which is the observed fact that the brightness of the sun at ground level declined about 5% between the 1950 and 1990. This dimming it's postulated was caused by particulate pollution which has been reduced due to measures like the Clean Air Act in the USA. Of concern is this dimming may have kept the earth cooler that it would otherwise have been during those decades meaning models predicting the effects of green house gasses on global warming may be underestimating their effect. As we continue to reduce particulate emmisions the sun should continue to brighten.

See also the BBC

On the upside this means that solar panels should get more effective.

This isn't intelligent design, just some people publishing an observed effect and others trying to use this knowledge to explain problems in global warming models.