Sunnybuck wrote:
Looks like a great old ride. Nice choice for the challenge.
Thanks for your comment, Sunnybuck.
Think you might be able to get a good deal on this one.
It's a Buckeye - Junonia coenia. Butterfly - knobs on the ends of the antenna.
Regards
catgirl wrote:
very nice conserve pg 5
Thanks, catgirl. Glad you like it.
Taken a while back, but it fits the theme.
Looks to me as if the focus on #2 is substantially in front of the bird. Notice how sharp the grass is at the bottom of frame.
drucker wrote:
Very few scientists deny that the climate is changing . . . again.
There is a reason that it's called Greenland and there are ancient maps of Antarctica without the ice and North America without the Mississippi delta and South America without the Amazon Delta.
The real unanswered question is if man is really causing it and the probable futile belief that we can do anything to stop it.
The reason it's called Greenland is that an Icelandic murderer exiled there called it Greenland hoping that the name would attract settlers. It actually was green about 3 million years ago, but then again with all the melting ice, the sea level was about 100 feet higher than today. The map of Antarctica without ice dates back about 35 million years when sea level was more than 250 feet above today's level.
Whether man is causing the change has been answered - and the answer is yes. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have driven the atmospheric levels from about 280 before the industrial revolution to more than 400 today - and that causes warming. 9 of hottest years on record have occurred during the past 10 years.
Perhaps a bit more subtle, perhaps not.
One trillion frames/second - from PBS Nova.
https://youtu.be/7Z8EtlBe8Ts
I believe #3 is a female common goldeneye - Bucephala clangula. Regards.
davefales wrote:
Do you have a cite for that "fact"?
I think a lot of people are unaware that Antarctica's average elevation is 8900' MSL.
From https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."
That from NASA which generally subscribes to AGW theory.
Do you have a cite for that "fact"? br ... (
show quote)
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the post - it's refreshing for someone to actually post references. I am somewhat familiar with the Zwally laser altimeter study. There are questions whether this study or others that show mass loss are correct. Good discussion at this link.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?postshare=2541446754571422
West Antarctica has been seen the collapse of ice shelves and an increasing glacial melt water rate that contributes to sea level rise. Conversely, East Antarctica receives very little snow and is considered a desert based on precipitation rate. Snow fall has been increasing in recent decades due to warmer air temperatures that hold more moisture - this lowers sea level. The question is which effect is larger.
"Zwally stated in the NASA press release that the study is "essentially in agreement with other studies" showing that land ice in West Antarctica is severely decreasing, but that the "main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica." He also noted that over the next couple of decades, ice loss in West Antarctica will likely outweigh the snowfall increase in East Antarctica, and that sea level rise over past decades must be coming from somewhere else."
Rabbott wrote:
thank god, that trump defeated the liar!!!!!
Yes, the professional liar defeated the amateur.
Great series. The zebra shot is amazing. Regards.
Really like the black and white version. Regards.