 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » Today Even Mountains Are Not Necessarily What They... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 8:09 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
[quote]Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:07 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:18 am, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:06 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:50 pm, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:14d8b57c-85bf-4697-96ca-62ae4e7cef1b at (no spam) j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
Now eat your shirts.
What's your point?
Because one photo has been altered, therefore all photos have been
altered?
That's an interesting foundation on which to build your argument.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
Now you really are BULLSHIT-
Prove that photoshop has been used to doctor photos of mountain
glaciers melting..
The burden of proof is on you since you made the allegation
•• ROTFLMAO
Where did I say that?
Can't you even remember what you wrote?
"For all those fools think that the photos of glaciers
are proof of anything more than that they exist,
check the photos of the 50 year old woman here"
So what are you saying?
••ROTFLMAO
If you need a translater go back to kindergarden
You really are pathetic. You haven't even got the guts to say straight
out what your slimey innuendo is implying.
•• Did you even see the third post before you
rushed to illustrate your imbecility?? Of
course NOT!!!!!
I'm looking at it right now and all I can see is your brainless drivel.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
The camera cannot lie, only the person manipulating the picture.
You are assuming anyway that only digital cameras exist.
[/quote]
•• ROTFLMAO ~~ Sonny boy you really need to
grow up. You are as bad as richie pissypants.
You know nothing but claim to know everything
Really good professional digitals have only been
on the market a few years
However,
[quote]digital cameras are an extremely modern invention.
[/quote]
Photoshop dores not work with cameras
[quote]Photoshop only came
on the market less than 20 years ago.
There are photographs of the glaciers in the Alps taken long before
there were digital cameras or even computers. They show the history of
the shrinking glaciers over a period of nearly 150 years.
[/quote]
•• With photoshop someone (not an idiot like you)
can take a civil war photo and make it better
than new. A computer, a scanner, and
Photoshop® and you can do miracles.
[quote]Either you are saying that all the original photos have been magically
spirited away and replaced with retouched ones showing lots of fake
glaciers.
A major undertaking, as not only do the original photographs have to
be digitized before being retouched, they have to be photographed again
onto negative glass plates in order to make the forgery convincing.
[/quote]
•• It is unlikely that two photographers decades
apart will photograph the same mountain from
the same position, with the same exposure,
same film and the same lens. That could also
apply to two photographers a day apart. And
and then the product goes through up to a
dozen lab procedures before it is bound in the
book.
Now you look at a picture of a Swiss Alp
15,000 feet up and you are on the Swiss
plateau up about 2k feet. Now the base
is 20 miles away and the peak is probably
30 miles distant. How can you tell whether
it is snowing or raining or melting. Sure on
a picture of Mont Blanc there is a large bare
verticle space in the picture. Most likely a
large drift or ledge had broken away a few
years later it will be covered again.
No there is no way you can tell if a glacier is
shrinking or swelling, without climbing up and
taking measurements. There is always
meltwater from some glaciers melting on the
lower reaches year round - fresh water for
people and livestock. In the spring and summer
all glaciers melt but some melt more than
others. From year to year some glaciers are
swelling, while others are swelling. At this
time more are growing than shrinking.
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 1:10 pm, boo-radley <mpmul... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 6:09 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:07 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:18 am, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:06 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:50 pm, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:14d8b57c-85bf-4697-96ca-62ae4e7cef1b at (no spam) j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
Now eat your shirts.
What's your point?
Because one photo has been altered, therefore all photos have been
altered?
That's an interesting foundation on which to build your argument.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
Now you really are BULLSHIT-
Prove that photoshop has been used to doctor photos of mountain
glaciers melting..
The burden of proof is on you since you made the allegation
•• ROTFLMAO
Where did I say that?
Can't you even remember what you wrote?
"For all those fools think that the photos of glaciers
are proof of anything more than that they exist,
check the photos of the 50 year old woman here"
So what are you saying?
••ROTFLMAO
If you need a translater go back to kindergarden
You really are pathetic. You haven't even got the guts to say straight
out what your slimey innuendo is implying.
•• Did you even see the third post before you
rushed to illustrate your imbecility?? Of
course NOT!!!!!
I'm looking at it right now and all I can see is your brainless drivel.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
Don't waste you time with this shit-for-brains, he can't tell the
difference between climate and weather.
[/quote]
•• Poor boo boo has shit for brains and he can't tell
the real difference between climate and weather.
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 8:09 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:07 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:18 am, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:06 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:50 pm, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:14d8b57c-85bf-4697-96ca-62ae4e7cef1b at (no spam) j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
Now eat your shirts.
What's your point?
Because one photo has been altered, therefore all photos have been
altered?
That's an interesting foundation on which to build your argument.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
Now you really are BULLSHIT-
Prove that photoshop has been used to doctor photos of mountain
glaciers melting..
The burden of proof is on you since you made the allegation
•• ROTFLMAO
Where did I say that?
Can't you even remember what you wrote?
"For all those fools think that the photos of glaciers
are proof of anything more than that they exist,
check the photos of the 50 year old woman here"
So what are you saying?
••ROTFLMAO
If you need a translater go back to kindergarden
You really are pathetic. You haven't even got the guts to say straight
out what your slimey innuendo is implying.
•• Did you even see the third post before you
rushed to illustrate your imbecility?? Of
course NOT!!!!!
I'm looking at it right now and all I can see is your brainless drivel.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
The camera cannot lie, only the person manipulating the picture.
You are assuming anyway that only digital cameras exist.
•• ROTFLMAO ~~ Sonny boy you really need to
grow up. You are as bad as richie pissypants.
You know nothing but claim to know everything
Really good professional digitals have only been
on the market a few years
However,
digital cameras are an extremely modern invention.
Photoshop dores not work with cameras
Photoshop only came
on the market less than 20 years ago.
There are photographs of the glaciers in the Alps taken long before
there were digital cameras or even computers. They show the history of
the shrinking glaciers over a period of nearly 150 years.
•• With photoshop someone (not an idiot like you)
can take a civil war photo and make it better
than new. A computer, a scanner, and
Photoshop® and you can do miracles.
Either you are saying that all the original photos have been magically
spirited away and replaced with retouched ones showing lots of fake
glaciers.
A major undertaking, as not only do the original photographs have to
be digitized before being retouched, they have to be photographed again
onto negative glass plates in order to make the forgery convincing.
•• It is unlikely that two photographers decades
apart will photograph the same mountain from
the same position, with the same exposure,
same film and the same lens. That could also
apply to two photographers a day apart. And
and then the product goes through up to a
dozen lab procedures before it is bound in the
book.
[/quote]
See http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/big_melt/index-en.html
These are photographs taken from exactly the same perspective. Read
this
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/morteratsch/comparison/tech-talk-en.html
to see how the photographers put every effort into showing the exact
changes that have taken place just in a few decades.
[quote]
Now you look at a picture of a Swiss Alp
15,000 feet up and you are on the Swiss
plateau up about 2k feet. Now the base
is 20 miles away and the peak is probably
30 miles distant. How can you tell whether
it is snowing or raining or melting. Sure on
a picture of Mont Blanc there is a large bare
verticle space in the picture. Most likely a
large drift or ledge had broken away a few
years later it will be covered again.
No there is no way you can tell if a glacier is
shrinking or swelling, without climbing up and
taking measurements.
[/quote]
Correct. And this is exactly what is done.
See http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Muehlbauer... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom P <werotizy at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
[quote]leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:09 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:07 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:18 am, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:06 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:50 pm, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:14d8b57c-85bf-4697-96ca-62ae4e7cef1b at (no spam) j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
Now eat your shirts.
What's your point?
Because one photo has been altered, therefore all photos have been
altered?
That's an interesting foundation on which to build your argument.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
Now you really are BULLSHIT-
Prove that photoshop has been used to doctor photos of mountain
glaciers melting..
The burden of proof is on you since you made the allegation
•• ROTFLMAO
Where did I say that?
Can't you even remember what you wrote?
"For all those fools think that the photos of glaciers
are proof of anything more than that they exist,
check the photos of the 50 year old woman here"
So what are you saying?
••ROTFLMAO
If you need a translater go back to kindergarden
You really are pathetic. You haven't even got the guts to say straight
out what your slimey innuendo is implying.
•• Did you even see the third post before you
rushed to illustrate your imbecility?? Of
course NOT!!!!!
I'm looking at it right now and all I can see is your brainless drivel.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
The camera cannot lie, only the person manipulating the picture.
You are assuming anyway that only digital cameras exist.
•• ROTFLMAO ~~ Sonny boy you really need to
grow up. You are as bad as richie pissypants.
You know nothing but claim to know everything
Really good professional digitals have only been
on the market a few years
However,
digital cameras are an extremely modern invention.
Photoshop dores not work with cameras
Photoshop only came
on the market less than 20 years ago.
There are photographs of the glaciers in the Alps taken long before
there were digital cameras or even computers. They show the history of
the shrinking glaciers over a period of nearly 150 years.
•• With photoshop someone (not an idiot like you)
can take a civil war photo and make it better
than new. A computer, a scanner, and
Photoshop® and you can do miracles.
Either you are saying that all the original photos have been magically
spirited away and replaced with retouched ones showing lots of fake
glaciers.
A major undertaking, as not only do the original photographs have to
be digitized before being retouched, they have to be photographed again
onto negative glass plates in order to make the forgery convincing.
•• It is unlikely that two photographers decades
apart will photograph the same mountain from
the same position, with the same exposure,
same film and the same lens. That could also
apply to two photographers a day apart. And
and then the product goes through up to a
dozen lab procedures before it is bound in the
book.
See http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/big_melt/index-en.html
These are photographs taken from exactly the same perspective. Read
this
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/morteratsch/comparison/tech-talk-en.html
to see how the photographers put every effort into showing the exact
changes that have taken place just in a few decades.
[/quote]
You know about seasons?
Winter:
http://images.snow-online.de/skigebiete/112/big_morteratsch-gletscher.jpg
Summer:
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,89072,00.jpg
Same perspective.
In addition, it is known very well, that the Alpes glaciers grow and retreat
in a 1200 year cycle.
This has demonstrably nothing to do with GW. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:48:54 +0100, Tom P <werotizy at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
[quote]leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:09 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:07 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:18 am, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:06 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:50 pm, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:14d8b57c-85bf-4697-96ca-62ae4e7cef1b at (no spam) j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
Now eat your shirts.
What's your point?
Because one photo has been altered, therefore all photos have been
altered?
That's an interesting foundation on which to build your argument.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
Now you really are BULLSHIT-
Prove that photoshop has been used to doctor photos of mountain
glaciers melting..
The burden of proof is on you since you made the allegation
•• ROTFLMAO
Where did I say that?
Can't you even remember what you wrote?
"For all those fools think that the photos of glaciers
are proof of anything more than that they exist,
check the photos of the 50 year old woman here"
So what are you saying?
••ROTFLMAO
If you need a translater go back to kindergarden
You really are pathetic. You haven't even got the guts to say straight
out what your slimey innuendo is implying.
•• Did you even see the third post before you
rushed to illustrate your imbecility?? Of
course NOT!!!!!
I'm looking at it right now and all I can see is your brainless drivel.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
The camera cannot lie, only the person manipulating the picture.
You are assuming anyway that only digital cameras exist.
•• ROTFLMAO ~~ Sonny boy you really need to
grow up. You are as bad as richie pissypants.
You know nothing but claim to know everything
Really good professional digitals have only been
on the market a few years
However,
digital cameras are an extremely modern invention.
Photoshop dores not work with cameras
Photoshop only came
on the market less than 20 years ago.
There are photographs of the glaciers in the Alps taken long before
there were digital cameras or even computers. They show the history of
the shrinking glaciers over a period of nearly 150 years.
•• With photoshop someone (not an idiot like you)
can take a civil war photo and make it better
than new. A computer, a scanner, and
Photoshop® and you can do miracles.
Either you are saying that all the original photos have been magically
spirited away and replaced with retouched ones showing lots of fake
glaciers.
A major undertaking, as not only do the original photographs have to
be digitized before being retouched, they have to be photographed again
onto negative glass plates in order to make the forgery convincing.
•• It is unlikely that two photographers decades
apart will photograph the same mountain from
the same position, with the same exposure,
same film and the same lens. That could also
apply to two photographers a day apart. And
and then the product goes through up to a
dozen lab procedures before it is bound in the
book.
See http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/big_melt/index-en.html
These are photographs taken from exactly the same perspective. Read
this
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/morteratsch/comparison/tech-talk-en.html
to see how the photographers put every effort into showing the exact
changes that have taken place just in a few decades.
Now you look at a picture of a Swiss Alp
15,000 feet up and you are on the Swiss
plateau up about 2k feet. Now the base
is 20 miles away and the peak is probably
30 miles distant. How can you tell whether
it is snowing or raining or melting. Sure on
a picture of Mont Blanc there is a large bare
verticle space in the picture. Most likely a
large drift or ledge had broken away a few
years later it will be covered again.
No there is no way you can tell if a glacier is
shrinking or swelling, without climbing up and
taking measurements.
Correct. And this is exactly what is done.
See http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/
[/quote]
I haven't seen a direct response to my
suggestion that the temperature hasn't changed
much since the big ice sheet melt that started
20,000 years ago.
So the only thing that kept any ice from
melting recently is the lower temperature at
higher altitudes.
My only question is, "why are any glaciers
advancing right next to others that are retreating?". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:48 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
[quote]leonard7... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:09 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:07 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:18 am, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:06 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:50 pm, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:14d8b57c-85bf-4697-96ca-62ae4e7cef1b at (no spam) j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
Now eat your shirts.
What's your point?
Because one photo has been altered, therefore all photos have been
altered?
That's an interesting foundation on which to build your argument.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
Now you really are BULLSHIT-
Prove that photoshop has been used to doctor photos of mountain
glaciers melting..
The burden of proof is on you since you made the allegation
•• ROTFLMAO
Where did I say that?
Can't you even remember what you wrote?
"For all those fools think that the photos of glaciers
are proof of anything more than that they exist,
check the photos of the 50 year old woman here"
So what are you saying?
••ROTFLMAO
If you need a translater go back to kindergarden
You really are pathetic. You haven't even got the guts to say straight
out what your slimey innuendo is implying.
•• Did you even see the third post before you
rushed to illustrate your imbecility?? Of
course NOT!!!!!
I'm looking at it right now and all I can see is your brainless drivel..
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
The camera cannot lie, only the person manipulating the picture.
You are assuming anyway that only digital cameras exist.
•• ROTFLMAO ~~ Sonny boy you really need to
grow up. You are as bad as richie pissypants.
You know nothing but claim to know everything
Really good professional digitals have only been
on the market a few years
However,
digital cameras are an extremely modern invention.
Photoshop dores not work with cameras
Photoshop only came
on the market less than 20 years ago.
There are photographs of the glaciers in the Alps taken long before
there were digital cameras or even computers. They show the history of
the shrinking glaciers over a period of nearly 150 years.
•• With photoshop someone (not an idiot like you)
can take a civil war photo and make it better
than new. A computer, a scanner, and
Photoshop® and you can do miracles.
Either you are saying that all the original photos have been magically
spirited away and replaced with retouched ones showing lots of fake
glaciers.
A major undertaking, as not only do the original photographs have to
be digitized before being retouched, they have to be photographed again
onto negative glass plates in order to make the forgery convincing.
•• It is unlikely that two photographers decades
apart will photograph the same mountain from
the same position, with the same exposure,
same film and the same lens. That could also
apply to two photographers a day apart. And
and then the product goes through up to a
dozen lab procedures before it is bound in the
book.
Seehttp://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/big_melt/index-en.html
These are photographs taken from exactly the same perspective. Read
thishttp://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/morteratsch/comparison/tech-talk-en.....
to see how the photographers put every effort into showing the exact
changes that have taken place just in a few decades.
Now you look at a picture of a Swiss Alp
15,000 feet up and you are on the Swiss
plateau up about 2k feet. Now the base
is 20 miles away and the peak is probably
30 miles distant. How can you tell whether
it is snowing or raining or melting. Sure on
a picture of Mont Blanc there is a large bare
verticle space in the picture. Most likely a
large drift or ledge had broken away a few
years later it will be covered again.
No there is no way you can tell if a glacier is
shrinking or swelling, without climbing up and
taking measurements.
Correct. And this is exactly what is done.
See http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/
[/quote]
•• So when were the two pix taken?
Summer? winter?
How many glaciers in the area are melting?
Can you prove any of this? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Muehlbauer... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com" <leonard78sp at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 2:48 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
leonard7... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:09 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:01 pm, Tom P <werot... at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
Last Post wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:07 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:18 am, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:06 am, Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:50 pm, Bert Hyman <b... at (no spam) iphouse.com> wrote:
Innews:14d8b57c-85bf-4697-96ca-62ae4e7cef1b at (no spam) j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Last Post <last_p... at (no spam) primus.ca> wrote:
Now eat your shirts.
What's your point?
Because one photo has been altered, therefore all photos have been
altered?
That's an interesting foundation on which to build your argument.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
Now you really are BULLSHIT-
Prove that photoshop has been used to doctor photos of mountain
glaciers melting..
The burden of proof is on you since you made the allegation
•• ROTFLMAO
Where did I say that?
Can't you even remember what you wrote?
"For all those fools think that the photos of glaciers
are proof of anything more than that they exist,
check the photos of the 50 year old woman here"
So what are you saying?
••ROTFLMAO
If you need a translater go back to kindergarden
You really are pathetic. You haven't even got the guts to say straight
out what your slimey innuendo is implying.
•• Did you even see the third post before you
rushed to illustrate your imbecility?? Of
course NOT!!!!!
I'm looking at it right now and all I can see is your brainless drivel.
•• No Bert:
It merely demonstrates how, with Photoshop,
one can do anything your little heart desires.
Ergo-- the camera CAN lie!!
The camera cannot lie, only the person manipulating the picture.
You are assuming anyway that only digital cameras exist.
•• ROTFLMAO ~~ Sonny boy you really need to
grow up. You are as bad as richie pissypants.
You know nothing but claim to know everything
Really good professional digitals have only been
on the market a few years
However,
digital cameras are an extremely modern invention.
Photoshop dores not work with cameras
Photoshop only came
on the market less than 20 years ago.
There are photographs of the glaciers in the Alps taken long before
there were digital cameras or even computers. They show the history of
the shrinking glaciers over a period of nearly 150 years.
•• With photoshop someone (not an idiot like you)
can take a civil war photo and make it better
than new. A computer, a scanner, and
Photoshop® and you can do miracles.
Either you are saying that all the original photos have been magically
spirited away and replaced with retouched ones showing lots of fake
glaciers.
A major undertaking, as not only do the original photographs have to
be digitized before being retouched, they have to be photographed again
onto negative glass plates in order to make the forgery convincing.
•• It is unlikely that two photographers decades
apart will photograph the same mountain from
the same position, with the same exposure,
same film and the same lens. That could also
apply to two photographers a day apart. And
and then the product goes through up to a
dozen lab procedures before it is bound in the
book.
Seehttp://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/big_melt/index-en.html
These are photographs taken from exactly the same perspective. Read
thishttp://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/morteratsch/comparison/tech-talk-en....
to see how the photographers put every effort into showing the exact
changes that have taken place just in a few decades.
Now you look at a picture of a Swiss Alp
15,000 feet up and you are on the Swiss
plateau up about 2k feet. Now the base
is 20 miles away and the peak is probably
30 miles distant. How can you tell whether
it is snowing or raining or melting. Sure on
a picture of Mont Blanc there is a large bare
verticle space in the picture. Most likely a
large drift or ledge had broken away a few
years later it will be covered again.
No there is no way you can tell if a glacier is
shrinking or swelling, without climbing up and
taking measurements.
Correct. And this is exactly what is done.
See http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/
•• So when were the two pix taken?
Summer? winter?
How many glaciers in the area are melting?
Can you prove any of this?
[/quote]
I like those BEFORE-AFTER picture jugglers.
Alp glaciers are growing and retreating in a 1200 year cycle, and thos idiots
think, not quite half a cycle is enough evidence.
But moaning about 10 years of data are not enough for evidence, there must be
30 years.
LOL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| _invertebrate_... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap.AT at (no spam) AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:a8lte5tj4hrcijeide1u3iqudavbcseg63 at (no spam) nntp.frankenexpress.de...
[quote]I like those BEFORE-AFTER picture jugglers.
Alp glaciers are growing and retreating in a 1200 year cycle, and thos
idiots
think, not quite half a cycle is enough evidence.
But moaning about 10 years of data are not enough for evidence, there must
be
30 years.
LOL
[/quote]
Where did you learn of a 1200 year cycle for glaciers? A quick Yahoo search
didn't turn up anything for me.
Do you agree with "I M at (no spam) good guy" that there are glaciers advancing right
next to others that are retreating?
_invertebrate_ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:18:26 -0500, "_invertebrate_"
<_invertebrate_ at (no spam) wormhole.va> wrote:
[quote]
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap.AT at (no spam) AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:a8lte5tj4hrcijeide1u3iqudavbcseg63 at (no spam) nntp.frankenexpress.de...
I like those BEFORE-AFTER picture jugglers.
Alp glaciers are growing and retreating in a 1200 year cycle, and thos
idiots
think, not quite half a cycle is enough evidence.
But moaning about 10 years of data are not enough for evidence, there must
be
30 years.
LOL
Where did you learn of a 1200 year cycle for glaciers? A quick Yahoo search
didn't turn up anything for me.
Do you agree with "I M at (no spam) good guy" that there are glaciers advancing right
next to others that are retreating?
_invertebrate_
[/quote]
The reason for that may not be spectacular,
it have a simple explanation, a higher/colder
elevation, mountain juxtaposition with winds
that cause heavier local snows, more shadow
or sunshine, etc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Muehlbauer... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_ at (no spam) wormhole.va> wrote:
[quote]
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap.AT at (no spam) AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:a8lte5tj4hrcijeide1u3iqudavbcseg63 at (no spam) nntp.frankenexpress.de...
I like those BEFORE-AFTER picture jugglers.
Alp glaciers are growing and retreating in a 1200 year cycle, and thos
idiots
think, not quite half a cycle is enough evidence.
But moaning about 10 years of data are not enough for evidence, there must
be
30 years.
LOL
Where did you learn of a 1200 year cycle for glaciers? A quick Yahoo search
didn't turn up anything for me.
Do you agree with "I M at (no spam) good guy" that there are glaciers advancing right
next to others that are retreating?
_invertebrate_
[/quote]
A very good scientific source for that can be found from the
University of Bern, Switzerland, here
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/newsletters/nl2003_1.pdf
(Start at page 13) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:08 am
|
|