APOD: Red Snow Moon over Edmonton (2011 Feb 28)

[Guest]

It all sounds pretty reasonable to me.

agreed

I took the shot from the 20th floor of an apartment building in west downtown Edmonton.
The center building is ~2km distant, while the refineries are 8-12 km away, a bit N or East.
I used a zoom lens at 135mm FL. There were no 'Shenanigans'.

Turns out my camera's clock was 1m20s behind UT, so the correct time of the shot was
2011 02 18, 19:13:48 MST, making the Moon's circumstances Alt 0.64 Az 86.8, 99.8% Illum

Luca Vanzella

[owlice]

Luca, thank you; it's a splendid shot, and I was very glad to see it as an APOD!

[deepstar]

I wasn't saying the picture was doctored, I was just saying that the stacks are not oil refinery stacks. Edmonton has a water treatment plant just south of downtown, as well as the stacks for the University heating plant across the river, which are huge. On a cold night, even the steam plumes from heating the buildings can be dramatic. It is a great picture, I was just questioning the description.

[neufer]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refinery_Row_%28Edmonton%29]Strathcona Refinery 7km east of Edmonton[/url]

---

I wasn't saying the picture was doctored, I was just saying that the stacks are not oil refinery stacks. Edmonton has a water treatment plant just south of downtown, as well as the stacks for the University heating plant across the river, which are huge. On a cold night, even the steam plumes from heating the buildings can be dramatic. It is a great picture, I was just questioning the description.

The moon generally rises in the East.

The circumstances of the Moon when I took the shot
(2011 02 18, 7:12:28 PM MST) were:
Moon Alt 0.5, Az 86.6, 99.8% Illum

[bystander]

The moon generally rises in the East.

Generally ??? Do you know of an instance when it didn't?

[neufer]

The moon generally rises in the East.

Generally ??? Do you know of an instance when it didn't?

At the North & South Poles.

At any given moment there is always one spot on earth
where a moonrise is occurring either directly North or directly South.

When the picture was taken at 2:12:28 UTC on 2/19/11 in today's APOD
there was a moonrise directly North in Antarctica at: 87º0'28"S / 21º37'40"E

[thassel]

i would suggest that those refineries are not located in the vicinity of downtown in edmonton...the picture is suspect

[Ken Hansen]

Just west of downtown, you can't even see the HSBC Building, nevermind the refineries.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heraldk/233456540/

Another shot from the west of Downtown, still no refineries.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/-_cathy_-/3956806109/

Look in the background of this hi-rez shot and you can see the tiny little exhaust stacks of refinery row.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/artour_a/3 ... otostream/

This shot shows how it is impossible to get a shot of the moon through downtown Edmonton and include the HSBC building as in the APOD picture. The HSBC building is left and infront of the ATCO tower and 3 bloacks east behind the Peace Hills Trust Tower.

Once again I call this image on APOD a composite photo.

[Ken Hansen]

I wasn't saying the picture was doctored, I was just saying that the stacks are not oil refinery stacks. Edmonton has a water treatment plant just south of downtown, as well as the stacks for the University heating plant across the river, which are huge. On a cold night, even the steam plumes from heating the buildings can be dramatic. It is a great picture, I was just questioning the description.

It is a power generating plant near downtown Edmonton that has been decommisoned for years and is about to be torn down.

I ask the photographer to tell us where the picture was taken from. I will take my own from that location is possible. It won't have a full moon in it, but it will show the refineries, or not, just like the original photo.

[toni]

Sent this one to

fauxtography@snopes.com

We'll see what the urban legend experts have to say.

[toni]

Good Idea Ken,

Let's subject this one to the rigors of peer review. Photographer should give the details, time, location, lens length etc. and allow two other independent photographers to replicate his perspective.

If you can't do it, it's just cold fusion.

[rstevenson]

The photographer has already told us where he took the picture from and with what lens, but if you can't be bothered to read the thread then I guess you can't be expected to know that.

Rob

[toni]

I read the thread. It's just "the 20th floor of an apartment building in west downtown Edmonton" isn't really that specific.

[Chris Peterson]

Once again I call this image on APOD a composite photo.

Rubbish. There's nothing in your linked images that suggests the image is impossible. Indeed, the most basic of math shows that the features of the image are as we would expect.

It would be far more trouble to build a composite and fake the EXIF data than to simply take the picture.

[Ken Hansen]

The photographer has already told us where he took the picture from and with what lens, but if you can't be bothered to read the thread then I guess you can't be expected to know that.

Rob

I guess it shouldn't be that hard to find the 20 story apartment as there are not very many buildings that tall in Edmonton due to our downtown airport that is hopefully being closed soon.

[owlice]

Just west of downtown, you can't even see the HSBC Building, nevermind the refineries.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heraldk/233456540/

Another shot from the west of Downtown, still no refineries.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/-_cathy_-/3956806109/

Look in the background of this hi-rez shot and you can see the tiny little exhaust stacks of refinery row.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/artour_a/3 ... otostream/

This shot shows how it is impossible to get a shot of the moon through downtown Edmonton and include the HSBC building as in the APOD picture. The HSBC building is left and infront of the ATCO tower and 3 bloacks east behind the Peace Hills Trust Tower.

Once again I call this image on APOD a composite photo.

Doesn't look as though any of the images at the links above were shot with a zoom. If you can see the "tiny little exhaust stacks of refinery row," as you put it, they are there to be photographed with a zoom lens.... such as the one used for this APOD.

[Ken Hansen]

Look in the background of this hi-rez shot and you can see the tiny little exhaust stacks of refinery row.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/artour_a/3 ... otostream/

Doesn't look as though any of the images at the links above were shot with a zoom. If you can see the "tiny little exhaust stacks of refinery row," as you put it, they are there to be photographed with a zoom lens.... such as the one used for this APOD.

Look at the exif data for this photo and you can see it was shot with a 135mm, as the APOD photo.

Red Moon over Edmonton is a great art photo.

[neufer]

Red Snow Moon over Edmonton

In this case, the shimmering steam plumes likely also caused the Moon to appear slightly compressed.

There are two REAL problems with today's APOD:

• 1) The moon is indeed vertically compressed (i.e., STOOPING) but only because of a strong temperature inversion having nothing whatever to do with the steam (other than the fact that the vertical steam plumes are an indicator of the lack of wind which contributes to the inversion).
  
  2) The slightly compressed link has not only been horizontally compressed photographically
  but it is an example of LOOMING due to a warm sea mirage.

I'm skeptical that the compressed Moon had anything to do with the steam plumes.

However, we are clearly seeing a Moon just a couple of degrees above the horizon,
meaning that ordinary atmospheric refraction is the likely explanation.

A nightime cold -25ºC temperature inversion at the surface is
more than enough of an explanation for the STOOPING of the Moon.

[Chris Peterson]

There are two REAL problems with today's APOD:

• 1) The moon is indeed vertically compressed (i.e., STOOPING) but only because of a strong temperature inversion having nothing whatever to do with the steam (other than the fact that the vertical steam plumes are an indicator of the lack of wind which contributes to the inversion).

It appears to me that stooping is primarily a short range effect- an aberration seen when the target is a few kilometers away. I think what we're seeing here is explained by simple atmospheric refraction of an object that is outside the atmosphere. That is, refraction caused by the normal density (and therefore index) gradient of the atmosphere from the ground to space.

Do you know there was an inversion layer present when the image was made?

[neufer]

Do you know there was an inversion layer present when the image was made?

At night, with no wind (clearly) and -25ºC at the surface there has to be a strong inversion.

[Chris Peterson]

Do you know there was an inversion layer present when the image was made?

At night, with no wind (clearly) and -25ºC at the surface there has to be a strong inversion.

Why? Is this altitude dependent? At mine (2800 m) I've had similar low temperatures with no apparent inversion (or no more than a slight one) as determined by looking at the 8-14um map of the sky (from the ground).

[neufer]

Do you know there was an inversion layer present when the image was made?

At night, with no wind (clearly) and -25ºC at the surface there has to be a strong inversion.

Why? Is this altitude dependent? At mine (2800 m) I've had similar low temperatures with no apparent inversion (or no more than a slight one) as determined by looking at the 8-14um map of the sky (from the ground).

"Similar" low temperatures at an altitude of 2800 m would be more like -40ºC ... is that what you mean?

A -40ºC temperature at night with no wind and would virtually guarantee that there is a strong inversion.

Have you compared your 8-14um map of the sky analysis with actual temperature soundings;
surely you must underestimate what the warmest layer actually is.

[Chris Peterson]

"Similar" low temperatures at an altitude of 2800 m would be more like -40ºC ... is that what you mean?

No, what I meant is that I've looked at sky temperatures when the surface temperature is -25°C and not seen evidence of an inversion layer... that is, I've seen what appears to be a monotonic decrease in temperature from -25°C at the ground to -40° or less at 10 km.

A -40ºC temperature at night with no wind and would virtually guarantee that there is a strong inversion.

This is the point I don't understand. Is it because of the radiative temperature drop of the surface? I certainly see that effect strongly on calm evenings, but it only seems to produce cold air up to a few tens of meters most of the time.

Have you compared your 8-14um map of the sky analysis with actual temperature soundings; surely you must underestimate what the warmest layer actually is.

I use a technique developed for converting allsky temperature measurements to a vertical profile. It depends on the fact that when you look at different zenith angles you are looking through different depths of atmosphere. Many observatories use this method, and it has been tested against actual sounding data, but I haven't made any such test myself at my location.

[neufer]

"Similar" low temperatures at an altitude of 2800 m would be more like -40ºC ... is that what you mean?

No, what I meant is that I've looked at sky temperatures when the surface temperature is -25°C and not seen evidence of an inversion layer... that is, I've seen what appears to be a monotonic decrease in temperature from -25°C at the ground to -40° or less at 10 km.

Your cold ground temperatures are mostly the result of being at altitude and
rapid radiative cooling under clear skies and not because of a strong cold front.

A -40ºC temperature at night with no wind and would virtually guarantee that there is a strong inversion.

This is the point I don't understand. Is it because of the radiative temperature drop of the surface? I certainly see that effect strongly on calm evenings, but it only seems to produce cold air up to a few tens of meters most of the time.

The radiative temperature drop of the surface would an important factor in the morning
(under clear skies) but not in the Edmonton situation since the sun had just set.

The pronounced Edmonton cold is indicative of a strong cold front
which for simple physical reasons hugs the surface
(or in your situation would sink down into the valleys):

Cold Front air concentrated at the surface

---