Look! Another Troll! wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:56:56 +1000, Noons wrote:

Outing Trolls wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 9:24 PM:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:17:05 +1000, Noons wrote:

Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland,
eh?
Inland is worse, but then you'd know this if you knew the least bit about
photography and astronomy. Another **** poor attempt of yours to try to
look like you knew something. Trolls never do.

What an idiot...

Inland *is* worse, because inland air is more unstable, has higher
fluctuations in humidity levels, often contains more dust and particulate
pollutants, and is downright turbulent compared to areas near ocean air.
All are enemies of "seeing" conditions. The weakest link when you have a
decent telescope optics.
You haven't got a bloody clue do you? The best observatories
are placed where a) light pollution is minimal, b) humidity
is low, and c) altitude is high. There are a few places
where some of these conditions can be achieved relatively
close to a coastline, but for the most part these conditions
are more likely to exist inland.
Hence why Siding Springs Observatory is a very good location
- it is in a very lightly populated area so there is little
light pollution. It's location in the mid-west of NSW
generally has very low humidity and few cloudy/rainy nights,
and at an altitude of about 1200m it has 1.2km less
atmosphere to look through than if it was at sea level.
Yes, there will occasionally be dust issues, and the odd
convection problem inland, but these are minor compared to
the problems that higher coastal humidities cause - not the
least of which is fewer clear-sky nights.
Get out into the outback of Australia, and the stars twinkle
much less than they do in coastal areas. The twinkling of
course is related to the amount of atmospheric disturbance.

snip crap from a troll who knows nothing about what he is
talking about
--
What is the difference between a duck?