9/22/2005: Red flash moon

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

--I'll get back to this part in a minute, but first--

The accusation of "This sounds like nonsense. Do you care to explain it in more detail?" is posted in direct contradiction to BigV's own citation. Care to explain why you did not read your own citation before posting?


--hack--

Hey, tw, before I have to reach in to my big bag o' insults, I'd like to draw your attention to this particular question, and correct your misunderstanding. For now, I'll let your incorrect assumptions about what I read slide.

In your first post in this thread, which I quoted twice now, you made this statement:

Research has suggested a substancial decrease in light absorbing materials in earths atmosphere. If air is dirtier, then global warming has occurred slower.

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.

One point at a time...

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Tell me where all this red 'scattered' light is at midnight? The moon is red because that is the red light refracted through the earth's atmosphere - the only source of light to illuminate the moon. Blue light does not bend sufficiently AND therefore does not illuminate the moon. The amount of red light that illuminates the moon is the amount of red light refracted through the earth's atmosphere.

At midnight, tw, all the light, red, blue, and otherwise, is on the opposite side of the planet. Shining on the planet. Shining on the atmosphere. Shining through the atmosphere. For those folks actually on the opposite side of the planet, where it would be midday, absent cloud cover, they would see this light, and the sky would be blue. It looks blue because the blue light of the visible spectrum of light scatters the most, "filling the sky" with that lovely blue color. You're seeing the atmosphere.

Those folks about six hours away in either direction see a rosy sunrise or a rosy sunset, weather conditions permitting. You yourself, and every other non blind or color blind person reading this post has had considerable first hand empirical evidence of this. Pay attention. Because the people near the terminator, the line between light and dark, have to see the sun or moon through so much more atmosphere, so much more blue light is scattered, and the proportion of light that does still get through without having been scattered is much higher in the redder frequencies. Roughly speaking, sunlight minus blue equals red.

Now, let's continue on to midnight. As an observer on the surface of the earth, the sunlight you're able to see at midnight would have to be reflected off of something. This is because the sunlight IS refracted. ALL sunlight. The variation, of how much more or less a given frequency of light is refracted is called dispersion. It only amounts to about 1% across the visible spectrum, and for our purposes, is irrelevant. From here:

Refraction is slightly different for different colors of light. This variation of the refractive index with the wavelength or frequency of the light is called dispersion. Dispersion is a property of all transparent materials.

The color of green flashes is due to the dispersion of air, which makes atmospheric refraction slightly different for different parts of the spectrum. The dispersion of air, like that of water, glass, clear plastics, and most other materials, is small: the refractivity (n - 1) varies by about 1% across the visible spectrum.

Because dispersion is so small, it is negligible for many purposes. Only in special situations is the dispersion of air visible to the naked eye.

So ALL light is refracted (including the blue frequencies) through the earth's atmosphere. A quick review of what refraction is:

Refraction in geometric optics is the change in direction of a wave due to a change in velocity. It happens when waves travel from a medium with a given refractive index to a medium with another. At the boundary between the media the wave changes direction; its wavelength increases or decreases but frequency remains constant. For example, a light ray will refract as it enters and leaves glass; understanding of this concept led to the invention of the refracting telescope.

Emphasis mine. Refraction happens at the boundary between space and atmosphere and again at the atmosphere space boundary on it's way back out of the atmosphere. Incidentally, it is refracted again as it reflects off the moon and into your eye, refracted again at the air/cornea boundary. Finally it is absorbed by the rods and cones on your retina. But I digress.

As the sunlight passes through and is refracted at the space/air boundary, it only CHANGES DIRECTION, NOT FREQUENCY. What goes in red comes out red, what goes in blue comes out blue. But there's the rub. The blue doesn't come out in our lunar eclipse model, it's scattered much much more by the ]dramatically longer slog through our atmosphere than the red is on its way from the sun, through the limb (second definition) of the earth, to the moon and back.

That, tw, is why the moon appears red during an eclipse. The blue frequencies are scattered more than the red frequencies. You only see what gets to your eyes. Or maybe you don't. But not through any fault of mine.

Originally Posted by tw

My odometer is only good to a mile. So how do I measure the distance between two points to within a hundreth of a mile? It's called statistics. Take enough data to obtain an accurate reading. Other variables to this experiment are included when taking that data; only some I have listed. But these variables are taken into account when measurements over generations showed a decrease in the amount of light reaching the moon - through earth's atmosphere.

Your assumptions about clouds and crude measuring assume no knowledge of statistics and no use of instruments. These experiements (and others including a measurment of sun's intensity) have been ongoing for decades using calibrated instruments; meaning these 'course measurements' by science have resulted in accurate data.

Meanwhile the course measurements that Big V cited from Danjon Scale of Lunar Eclipse Brightness are how the laymen - without instruments - can ball park the same experiment. That citation also says BigV's own citation confirms that lunar eclipses measure the clarity of earth's atmosphere.

Yeah, like this instrument measures weather.

Originally Posted by tw

--covered earlier--

I thank you for confirming what I had posted. The illumination of the moon by light refracted in earth's atmosphere is one method to measure clarity or contamination of earth's atmosphere. Big V confirms how the experiment is performed- and how laymen without instruments can do the same experiment.

Hey, my pleasure. Anything I can do to bolster your credibility is a blow to the evil MBAs of the world, and to our mutual benfit.

[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.

[Trilby]

You guys are all pretty smart. I never, never, never think about this stuff (I know--leaving myself wide open for an insult-fest) but, seriously, I never do. Why do you all worry about this? Just enjoy the red moon. Maybe it's a sign of the endtimes or something.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Brianna

You guys are all pretty smart. I never, never, never think about this stuff

What, goatse and tubgirl?

[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 Brianna

You guys are all pretty smart. I never, never, never think about this stuff (I know--leaving myself wide open for an insult-fest) but, seriously, I never do. Why do you all worry about this? Just enjoy the red moon. Maybe it's a sign of the endtimes or something.

A buddy of mine and I are sitting around after a game one early morning and the topic came around to how the full moon looked especially bright that night:

Mitheral: Man the moon sure is bright tonight.
Friend of Mitheral: Did you know that the moon is 1 millionth the brightness of the sun?
M: Say what?
FoM: Ya, I read that a clear sky full moon reflects about 1/1,000,000 of the suns light to the surface of the earth.
M: Not that I don't believe you, what with you being the rocket scientist and all<1>, but let's take Bill Nye's advice to heart<2> and give this a test.

So the next night we head out to a sufficiently dark place away from the light pollution of town with 35mm gear and a stopwatch. A few quick calculations of F-stops and reciprocity failure time fudges and we start taking _long_ exposures of the surrounding scenery.

Five days later (we're not working for the government here so we didn't see any need to pay for 1hr processing) we had a half dozen pictures of what appeared at first glance to be fairly normal looking landscapes.

Until you noticed that the grass was all fuzzy soft looking like a new piece of fleece but fence posts and buildings were razor sharp. There wasn't even much of a colour cast as the moon is a pretty near perfect grey card. The ever so slightly off colours were probably a result of the 4+ minute exposure times. Kind of a '70s techincolour effect.

So yes the light reflected by the moon to earth is about 1 millionth the brightness of the sun.

<1> Sort of, though more a rocket scientist in training, he was an aerospace engineering student.

<2> One test is worth a thousand expert opinions.

[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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

When America used to make things and the coal fired smokestacks were belching great plumes of soot, the weather was definitely cooler on the ground. The soot may have been absorbing the heat from the sun and dissipating it around the world for a net increase in total heat, but locally it was cooler.

[Billy Budapest]

Maybe that red phenomenon is the spaceship that the Scientologists say is waiting on the other side of the moon to take us all away to Paradise?

[lumberjim]

ok, who let the Canadian in?!

[tw]

Originally Posted by mitheral

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.

Global warning was recently connected with activity of man. That part is no longer disputable. However details of the mechanism(s) involved are still being learned. Another piece of the puzzle has been identified: From BBC News of 12 Nov 2005:

Water builds the heat in Europe
The scientists say that rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gases are increasing humidity, which in turn amplifies the temperature rise.

This is potentially a positive feedback mechanism which could increase the impact of greenhouse gases such as CO2. ...

"We observed that between 1995 and 2002, the amount of longwave radiation coming downwards to the Earth in Europe increased significantly, whereas solar radiation did not," said study leader Rolf Philipona, from the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland.

Longwave radiation comes from molecules of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapour which have absorbed solar radiation after it has hit the Earth's surface and been reflected back up through the atmosphere.

"We wondered if this effect was simply because of a temperature increase at the surface - you would just get more radiation going up, and so more coming back down," Dr Philipona told the BBC News website.

[xoxoxoBruce]

you would just get more radiation going up, and so more coming back down," Dr Philipona told the BBC News website.

Huh? The radiation given off by the Earth goes up and then falls back to Earth? Gravity pull? Reflected off the Troposphere?

Anyway, everyone knows it's not the heat....it's the humidity.

[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.