Home/BlogI took these this morning (Nov. 18, 2013), again near New Market, Alabama. I was hoping the clouds would clear in time to reveal the comet, which is just what happened. The first video is from ~300 20-sec exposures, the 2nd video used ~150 5-sec exposures (shot just after the first). I used a Canon 6D with 85mm f/1.2 lens and an AstroTrac for tracking of the stars. All of the lighting of the landscape was provided by the moon and the very sensitive camera and lens…by eye, it was much darker.
Dr. S., I’m getting old comet videos on the homepage again… (You’ve got the correct ones on the comment page) Is it you or is it my (goofy and I might add old) iPhone?
must be the iPhone…have you tried reloading the page? It must be using an old cached version.
Both times this has happened, the correct videos came up immediately after I posted a comment about it. (I had thoroughly checked it out before posting comments) If it happens again I’ll try it on another device and let you know if it still has problems…
I need someone to look at my core idea, which to me seems to prove irrefutably that CO2 increases are not fossil fuel generated.
I wondered if we could tell whether the 50% increase was man made and it is quite simple to prove it is not.
You can use Radio carbon dating quite simply.
C14 as a trace gas tells us categorially that no man made CO2 is in the air. C14 free Fossil fuel has not diluted C14 levels by 33%.
Seconly the rapid exponential decay of bomb C14 laced CO2 into a single sink going quickly to the old C14 level proves absolutely that 98% of all man made CO2 is gone.
Tell me where I am wrong. If I am right, AGW is completely busted.
Once this is accepted, everything is understood. I can even explain Dr Murry Salby’s amazing discovery that CO2 exactly follows the integral of global air temperature.
Matthew, I am an insomniac and am not having one of my best days, so forgive me if I drift. (I’ll be more concise than I want to be as well) I,too, am of the thinking that the rise in co2 being anthropogenic is the chink in the armor of AGW theory. It’s fairly well known in skeptic circles that carbon growth tracks temperature. Unfortunately the debate seems to end there. Playing devils advocate here, as temperature increases the carbon sinks also change with temperature there bye removing all natural co2. What we’re left with then is an anthropogenic rise in co2. Now they can’t seem to prove this, however, it does seem to make the natural growth argument less than definitive… Dr Spencer is of the mind that the rise in co2 is anthropogenic ( man made) and he is very well aware that other scientists believe differently. If some one knows where on this site he explains why that would be nice. (I imagine getting a word in here from the good doctor would be a lot like getting an audience with the pope) I hope I’ve been of some help here and that I’ve been somewhat coherent. Time now for me to watch some gilligan’s island and then catch some zzzzz…
Matthew, here’s an interesting posting by doctor spencer called “global warming causing carbon dioxide increases: a simple model” dated may 11, 2009. You can find it in the archive section to the right. You can also find the ipcc “carbon dioxide growth rate at Mauna Loa” at the top of the home page under ‘global warming background’ which sparked the idea for the may 11, 2009 blog post.
Nighty, night. Zzzzz…
I wanted to wait til I had a little sleep before addressing your core argument. (and I have) I think the counter argument to that is that man made co2 mixes into the whole of co2 and then 98% OF THE WHOLE gets taken out of the atmosphere… What we are left with is an addition to the atmosphere that amounts to about 50% of human emissions. If it weren’t for mankind’s co2 additions, there would be no rise of co2 as nature would be taking out a number much closer to 100% if left on its own. So an astute warmist (of which there are few) would actually concur with your point that 98% of human emissions get taken out of the atmosphere, but would still insist that humans are the cause of the rise in co2. I hope this counter argument is a help. Nailing down an argument that the rise in co2 is a natural one is difficult but probably less so than an argument for emissions being the cause. I’m not seeing a definitive argument on either side…
Forgive me. I know I could probably look this up myself but is ISON visible to the naked eye?
I remember when it was first spotted they thought it would be spectacular but later downgraded that assessment.
(I live in central Ohio.)
I did check myself and it sounds like it might be. Tomorrow morning it should be near Spica in Virgo in the predawn sky.
If it survives it’s pass behind the Sun then beginning in December it will be higher in the sky and maybe brighter.
Hello, everything is going perfectly here and ofcourse every one is sharing data, thats in fact good, keep up writing.
Great line up. We will be linking to this great article on our site. Keep up the good writing.
So delighted with this post. A lot of great stuff here. This is a very well-written article. I am bookmarking it so see more in the future.