nice planet

Not exactly a comprehensive sample of one particular planet.

John Larkin doesn't understand the different between weather and climate, so I suppose to makes sense that he thinks that a small (and none-too-representative) sample of a planetary surface may serve to characterise the planet as a whole.

Lighten up Bill :)

Boy do you talk some rubbish.

Fair comment. I'd like to be funnier, but comedy is tricky.

ouble_2017.JPG

e, so I suppose to makes sense that he thinks that a small (and none-too-re presentative) sample of a planetary surface may serve to characterise the p lanet as a whole.

Boy John Larkin does post some irrelevant rubbish, and didn't even bother p utting an Off Topic in the subject line. Some kind of put-down seemed to be called for. Sorry the point wasn't obvious to you, but I do aim at slightl y more intelligent readers than you - there are a lot more of them. Feel fr ee to tell us when you can't recognise what is going on - we'll make the ap propriate allowance when we read you stuff, if we bother.

_Double_2017.JPG

ate, so I suppose to makes sense that he thinks that a small (and none-too- representative) sample of a planetary surface may serve to characterise the planet as a whole.

putting an Off Topic in the subject line. Some kind of put-down seemed to be called for. Sorry the point wasn't obvious to you, but I do aim at sligh tly more intelligent readers than you - there are a lot more of them. Feel free to tell us when you can't recognise what is going on - we'll make the appropriate allowance when we read you stuff, if we bother.

The only person you put down with your childish posts is yourself.

aw_Double_2017.JPG

imate, so I suppose to makes sense that he thinks that a small (and none-to o-representative) sample of a planetary surface may serve to characterise t he planet as a whole.

er putting an Off Topic in the subject line. Some kind of put-down seemed t o be called for. Sorry the point wasn't obvious to you, but I do aim at sli ghtly more intelligent readers than you - there are a lot more of them. Fee l free to tell us when you can't recognise what is going on - we'll make th e appropriate allowance when we read you stuff, if we bother.

That's your opinion. I might say the same thing, but then again, there isn' t much for me to put down, so why should I bother?

Came thru without a fuss and clean (foto only).

Very nice! Sundog?

Not the normal double rainbow, the colors aren't reversed. Also the red is there but yellow and blue are not distinct on the upper one. And, I have never seen a rainbow with the peak pointing earthward! Are you sure this isn't a lens artifact?

Mikek

I did not notice that John Larkin claimed it was a comprehensive sample. B ut it does not need to be that in order for the earth to be a nice planet.

putting an Off Topic in the subject line. Some kind of put-down seemed to be called for. Sorry the point wasn't obvious to you, but I do aim at sligh tly more intelligent readers than you - there are a lot more of them. Feel free to tell us when you can't recognise what is going on - we'll make the appropriate allowance when we read you stuff, if we bother.

Some of the people here are intelligent enough to realize a post labeled " nice planet " is not going to be on topic. Only a person of little intell ect would feel obliged to point that out.

Some kind of put-down seemed to be called for.

Why? Any intelligent reader does not need help in comprehending. Yet you think it is your responsibility tell them what is obvious.

Dan

quaw_Double_2017.JPG

climate, so I suppose to makes sense that he thinks that a small (and none- too-representative) sample of a planetary surface may serve to characterise the planet as a whole.

ther putting an Off Topic in the subject line. Some kind of put-down seemed to be called for. Sorry the point wasn't obvious to you, but I do aim at s lightly more intelligent readers than you - there are a lot more of them. F eel free to tell us when you can't recognise what is going on - we'll make the appropriate allowance when we read you stuff, if we bother.

n't much for me to put down, so why should I bother?

you remind us how childish you are once again. And I'm sure you will again.

NT

I'm guessing the sun is off the top of the picture in which case it looks like a circumzenithal halo and a colourful supralateral arc. Ice crystals with the right prismatic shape and winds to align them...

Playing around with halosim will get you a match.

I was there! It was real.

They are ice crystal haloes from fairly uniform wind aligned prismatic crystals in the upper atmosphere. High altitude version of diamond dust.

They are real. The top one is either a circum zenithal arc or a 22degree halo round the sun with some dispersion. The lower one is one of the stronger highly coloured arcs from hexagonal prisms I think.

They are up market somewhat rarer versions of parhelia or Sun dogs.

It's called a circumhorizontal arc.

Fresh air ! I was there too ... not really there but here

Habib

Your side of the planet looks nice too. Looks a little like the Sierras, about our altitude, volcanic spikey things.

In that last one, on the right, is that a fog-fall?

I need to learn more about rocks. We have some of the Giants Causeway things here, clusters of vertical crystallized hexagons, not as big as the ones in Ireland of course. Lots of glaciated stuff too.

We got 800 inches, 20 meters, of snow here this winter. I bet you can't do that!

Cool, just like my pic.

Photos were taken a couple weeks ago by my grand son Victor and me in French Alps Vercors (the name is "Pas de l'oeille") about 1900/2100m. Not far from "la grande Moucherolle" ... but too snowy to climb further ... were not equiped for ... too hard and dangerous :-(

Yup ! Impressive at the time ! Powerful wind and fog-up from the valley.

Oh not as much here in Vercors but enough (about 10 m cumulative) to enjoy skiing till March/April, depends on years.

Habib