/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15367977
Even with a good set of binoculars on a tripod - you can always see at least see 4 of Jupiter's moons; tons of stars you normally wouldn't see; and tons of detail on our moon. I don't remember the exact model/specs but my big binoculars are celestrons - but you DEFINITELY want to make sure whatever you get - that you can mount it on a half decent tripod - free-handing isn't sufficient for the best detail/extended viewings.

I have a celestron 4SE scope and like it... but pretty much never use it. That is why I can't overstate that the 'coolness to effort of setup/pack up/use' ratio is unbeatable with the 'good binoculars/decent tripod' method...

It is cool to set up the proper scope and see Saturn's rings and Jupiter's stripes and all... but the amount of hassle involved in setting it up (at least in my experience) is almost never worth the tiny bit of time you will feel like spending gazing down the eyepiece.

I'd advise... if you are serious about it, do your best to research methods/costs of setting up something like a 4SE with a camera that links to a laptop that you can then view via the screen instead of down the eyepiece & can control telescope movement from the computer inside. (I just live somewhere where the best nights for going out and viewing things are either ungodly cold or hot/miserable/full of mosquitos and shit - so this really deters me from spending tons of time behind a scope).

>>15252450
Agreed

Also, breaking news: The climate has always been changing. The variables are how/where/to what extent/at what speed

Man-made emissions are part of the equation but are by no means the primary mechanism. There are much bigger factors at play - factors & cycles that are poorly understood on their own; and even less understood when considering interplay between them

Imagine the hubris to think that civilization's emissions over the last ~100-150 years has a bigger impact than say... variation in activity of things like... the sun. You know - that big thing that all the planets go around, that accounts for 99.8% of all mass in the solar system - that thing.

Pollution is bad. Emissions should be reduced. But that doesn't mean that climate change is primarily caused by man and it does not mean that non-combustion/non-fossil-fuel sources of energy area always cleaner - or even practical - you have to critically think enough about these things, especially when production, maintenance, and use of these green/renewable technologies require a ton more combustion/petroleum inputs than most seem to realize or care to admit. Do you know how many barrels of oil it takes to make & ship a new car? If you don't need a new car but sell your gas vehicle to buy an electric one simply to try to be greener - you are unnecessarily starting out with all that extra emission debt + then likely plugging it in to a power grid that is mainly powered by coal. We need a bunch of changes and bunch of different solutions/options working together - we can't just ignore reality in the process, we need to take time to figure out what is best and approach things strategically

We must get out of the close-minded, religious thinking in science - in all areas, but especially in this one. Arguing with close-minded people about climate change feels just like arguing with anti-vaxxers most of the time. You are worsening the problem you care about most by not thinking it through enough.