Is this the real earth?

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMRYE63R8F_index_0.html


This image was taken using ORANGE green and blue filters. What happened to
RED green and blue? (RGB)

The earth looked like this in the 60's. The earth does not look like this
now. Haze and a deteriorated atmosphere is the order of the day now...not
this
idealized crock.

"Buffalo Gump" wrote in news:k2s1j.9284$Ji6.2628@edtnps89:

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMRYE63R8F_index_0.html


This image was taken using ORANGE green and blue filters. What happened to
RED green and blue? (RGB)

The earth looked like this in the 60's. The earth does not look like this
now. Haze and a deteriorated atmosphere is the order of the day now...not
this
idealized crock.

Orange? Red? Does it matter? Did you know the 'red' phosphor on
that monitor you're using is actually orange? Go into your fave
paint program and paint your screen pure red. Now shine a red
laser pointer next to it and you'll see just how orange your
'red' screen is.

Besides, the filters selected for scientific missions are chosen
for their scientific merit, not color rendition. As such, when
they want to make a "true color" image, they use the closest
match and do some adjusting to make it look right. Usually they
are called "pseudo-true color".

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Buffalo Gump wrote:

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMRYE63R8F_index_0.html

This image was taken using ORANGE green and blue filters. What happened to
RED green and blue? (RGB)

The earth looked like this in the 60's. The earth does not look like this
now. Haze and a deteriorated atmosphere is the order of the day now...not
this
idealized crock.

so you want a red planet? for some political agenda? you will
have to wait .......... at least six months! Thats about as long as
a political junkie can last without his fix. (or maybe six hours)

On Nov 22, 8:46 pm, "Buffalo Gump" wrote:

The earth looked like this in the 60's. The earth does not look like this
now. Haze and a deteriorated atmosphere is the order of the day
now...not this idealized crock.

You would be surprised what a small portion of the Earth's surface is
taken up by the big cities with their polluted air.

The elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere
globally do not show up in visible light.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
You would be surprised what a small portion of the Earth's surface is
taken up by the big cities with their polluted air.

The elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere
globally do not show up in visible light.

John Savard

Isn't CO2 a clear gas, and therefore not show up visibly at any
concentration?

=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA

"SkySea" wrote in message
...
Quadibloc wrote:
You would be surprised what a small portion of the Earth's surface is
taken up by the big cities with their polluted air.

The elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere
globally do not show up in visible light.

John Savard

Isn't CO2 a clear gas, and therefore not show up visibly at any
concentration?

=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA

Hi, Dale!!!

Nice to see you here & posting again...

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21

"SkySea" wrote in message
...
Quadibloc wrote:
You would be surprised what a small portion of the Earth's surface is
taken up by the big cities with their polluted air.

The elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere
globally do not show up in visible light.

John Savard

Isn't CO2 a clear gas, and therefore not show up visibly at any
concentration?

Savard is the victim of a common ailment in misinterpreting straightforward
comments about atmospheric pollution

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:46:24 GMT, "Buffalo Gump"
wrote:

This image was taken using ORANGE green and blue filters. What happened to
RED green and blue? (RGB)

There's nothing special about RGB. It certainly doesn't do a very good
job matching human color response (which is most certainly not based on
RGB). Any three wavelength bands that overlap can be used as primary
colors; in fact, they don't necessarily have to overlap to still provide
an acceptable gamut. In this case, there is not enough information
provided about the processing to make any kind of judgment at all about
the choice of filters and how they might have impacted the appearance of
the image.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Nov 23, 9:48 pm, "Buffalo Gump" wrote:
"SkySea" wrote in message
...
Quadibloc wrote:

The elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere
globally do not show up in visible light.

Isn't CO2 a clear gas, and therefore not show up visibly at any
concentration?

Savard is the victim of a common ailment in misinterpreting straightforward
comments about atmospheric pollution.

I thought what I said, that carbon dioxide can't be detected with
visible light, is consistent with it being a clear gas. The reason I
mentioned carbon dioxide is that the elevated carbon dioxide levels
blamed for global warming, along with the thinning of the ozone layer
(ozone is another clear gas) are examples of air pollution on a global
scale with which some readers might be familiar.

The kinds of air pollution that are easily visible - particulate haze
and the like - are *local* problems, in the vicinity of large cities.
This, too, won't change the general appearance of the Earth as viewed
from the Moon.

From that perspective, despite Man's depredations, the Earth is still
the beautiful jewel in the sky it always was.

John Savard

"Jan Owen" wrote:
Hi, Dale!!!
Nice to see you here & posting again...

Thannks, Jan - I lurk a lot. Seems I just don't have that much to
offer. Discussions area lot less about the hobby, and more about
snapping up troll-bait.

John - thanks for clearing up (pun noted) the clear-gas statement. In
hindsight, I should've figured your meaning by myself.

=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA