NOVA show: Making Stuff Smaller
Denis G.
pill-cameras (recently discussed here). It is the second show of the
4-part “Making Stuff” series (Stronger, Smaller, Cleaner and
Smarter). Next week's show features Jay Leno, his collection of cars
and new car and energy technology. A local PBS radio show, I follow,
interviewed the show’s host, David Pogue (a NY Times science
correspondent). He mentioned one funny thing about the pillcam that
was probably an aside to the TV broadcast (I haven’t seen it yet).
Doctors instruct patients that when the pill-cam completes it’s
“journey”, they don’t have to worry about it and can flush it down the
toilet. Yet when they review the video, they will often see a hand
fishing it out of the toilet and fingers busily washing the camera off
with soap and water. <gross, but funny>
Rich Grise
> This week?s NOVA is about micro-technology including something about
> pill-cameras (recently discussed here). It is the second show of the
> 4-part ?Making Stuff? series (Stronger, Smaller, Cleaner and
> Smarter). Next week's show features Jay Leno, his collection of cars
> and new car and energy technology. A local PBS radio show, I follow,
> interviewed the show?s host, David Pogue (a NY Times science
> correspondent). He mentioned one funny thing about the pillcam that
> was probably an aside to the TV broadcast (I haven?t seen it yet).
> Doctors instruct patients that when the pill-cam completes it?s
> ?journey?, they don?t have to worry about it and can flush it down the
> toilet. Yet when they review the video, they will often see a hand
> fishing it out of the toilet and fingers busily washing the camera off
> with soap and water. <gross, but funny>
I was a lot more disappointed with that show than most people probably
were. Even more so than I expected to be.
Early in the show, they're doing a bit on wristwatches. He does a brief
thumbnail history of the pendulum, which he calls an "oscillator," and
when you see a close-up of an escapement, he's still calling it the
"oscillator." Then, he segues into making clocks not need a pendulum,
and he says the answer was a "mainspring."
Well, that's just crap. The revolutionary thing wasn't the "mainspring,"
they'd been running stuff off springs for decades if not centuries! The
_real_ revolution in chronometry came with the _hairspring_ and the
balance wheel, which didn't even get mentioned!
At that point, I thought, man if they're that stupid this early in the
show, how credible is anything else he tells me?
And when they got to the segment about silicon chips, after about the
third time the guy said, "siliKAHN" I wanted to strangle him.
Thanks for the opportunity to vent; I feel much better now. :-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
> This week?s NOVA is about micro-technology including something about
> pill-cameras (recently discussed here). It is the second show of the
> 4-part ?Making Stuff? series (Stronger, Smaller, Cleaner and
> Smarter). Next week's show features Jay Leno, his collection of cars
> and new car and energy technology. A local PBS radio show, I follow,
> interviewed the show?s host, David Pogue (a NY Times science
> correspondent). He mentioned one funny thing about the pillcam that
> was probably an aside to the TV broadcast (I haven?t seen it yet).
> Doctors instruct patients that when the pill-cam completes it?s
> ?journey?, they don?t have to worry about it and can flush it down the
> toilet. Yet when they review the video, they will often see a hand
> fishing it out of the toilet and fingers busily washing the camera off
> with soap and water. <gross, but funny>
I saw a sitcom where some guy swallowed a diamond ring and then crapped
in a colander until he found it.
Cheers!
Rich
ignator
NOVA has become total goo-goo-gaa-gaa science, and is now intended for
kids. I wish they would replay the original shows I remember from
1976, these were not dumb down. Oh well, the intent is to get more
kids in science. Just what I need more kids that are academic, and
have no "knack".
ignator
Dave__67
Same with scientific american- they dialed the smarts waaaay back.
Dave
Larry Jaques
<ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>Denis G. wrote:
>
>> This week?s NOVA is about micro-technology including something about
>> pill-cameras (recently discussed here). It is the second show of the
>> 4-part ?Making Stuff? series (Stronger, Smaller, Cleaner and
>> Smarter). Next week's show features Jay Leno, his collection of cars
>> and new car and energy technology. A local PBS radio show, I follow,
>> interviewed the show?s host, David Pogue (a NY Times science
>> correspondent). He mentioned one funny thing about the pillcam that
>> was probably an aside to the TV broadcast (I haven?t seen it yet).
>> Doctors instruct patients that when the pill-cam completes it?s
>> ?journey?, they don?t have to worry about it and can flush it down the
>> toilet. Yet when they review the video, they will often see a hand
>> fishing it out of the toilet and fingers busily washing the camera off
>> with soap and water. <gross, but funny>
>
>I was a lot more disappointed with that show than most people probably
>were. Even more so than I expected to be.
NOVA and Nature (George Page's baby, RIP <sniffle>) used to be much
better shows. Political correctness and less intelligence crept in.
>Early in the show, they're doing a bit on wristwatches. He does a brief
>thumbnail history of the pendulum, which he calls an "oscillator," and
>when you see a close-up of an escapement, he's still calling it the
>"oscillator." Then, he segues into making clocks not need a pendulum,
>and he says the answer was a "mainspring."
>
>Well, that's just crap. The revolutionary thing wasn't the "mainspring,"
>they'd been running stuff off springs for decades if not centuries! The
>_real_ revolution in chronometry came with the _hairspring_ and the
>balance wheel, which didn't even get mentioned!
>
>At that point, I thought, man if they're that stupid this early in the
>show, how credible is anything else he tells me?
Hey, they have to dumb it down so everyone who didn't graduate from
what they graciously call "schools" here now could understand it.
>And when they got to the segment about silicon chips, after about the
>third time the guy said, "siliKAHN" I wanted to strangle him.
Um, silicon is pronounced "silikahn" while silicone is pronounced
"silicone". Silicon (chips) is elemental while silicone (rubber stuff)
is a manmade compound. Pronunciation differs. Whassamattayou?
>Thanks for the opportunity to vent; I feel much better now. :-)
Heavier now, I presume? ;)
--
Ask not what the world needs. Ask what makes you come
alive... then go do it. Because what the world needs
is people who have come alive. -- Howard Thurman
Larry Jaques
<ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>I saw a sitcom where some guy swallowed a diamond ring and then crapped
>in a colander until he found it.
That suuuuuure makes me miss watching TV...
Well, that one lived up to its name: a shitcom.
CaveLamb
I went to the local VA clinic this morning for blood work.
"I dream of Jennie" was on the TV in the waiting room.
Sad...
--
Richard Lamb
email me: cave...@earthlink.net
web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
steamer
HOW they made it smaller. Harrumph.
--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---
Rich Grise
> On Jan 27, 4:07 am, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>> And when they got to the segment about silicon chips, after about the
>> third time the guy said, "siliKAHN" I wanted to strangle him.
>>
>> Thanks for the opportunity to vent; I feel much better now. :-)
>
> kids. I wish they would replay the original shows I remember from
> 1976, these were not dumb down. Oh well, the intent is to get more
> kids in science. Just what I need more kids that are academic, and
> have no "knack".
>
accurate? "For the chillllldruuuuuuunnnnn," you know.
Thanks,
Rich
Rich Grise
I used to have a supscription to SA; I dropped it in the 1970's when they
went warmingist.
Thanks,
Rich
Denis G.
I finished watching it, and I guess that your criticism and that of
the others unfortunately fits. It was a bit breezy. I guess that the
target audience if really for the non-technical. I was drawn in by
the promotion of the show, but now that I've learned my lesson, I'll
return to whatever else I was doing.
James Waldby
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:07:25 -0800, Rich Grise wrote:
>>Denis G. wrote:
>>
>> 4-part ?Making Stuff? series (Stronger, Smaller, Cleaner and Smarter).
>>
>>were. Even more so than I expected to be.
The first show of the series, about stronger materials, was reasonably
good (and far above my expectations for it) although in many places
technical details were lacking that should have been included.
Stupid, flashing screen cuts and horrid, irritating background music
(which have been problems with many of the Nova Science Now programs)
were notably absent.
>>And when they got to the segment about silicon chips, after about the
>>third time the guy said, "siliKAHN" I wanted to strangle him.
>
> Um, silicon is pronounced "silikahn" while silicone is pronounced
> "silicone". Silicon (chips) is elemental while silicone (rubber stuff)
> is a manmade compound. Pronunciation differs. Whassamattayou?
Perhaps he wants them to say it like "silikun", ie, have the last
syllable rhyme with gun rather than gone. Ie, "...cone" not an issue.
Pronunciation shown at <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silicon> is
"IPA: /ˈsɪlɪkən/", and elsewhere online, "\ˈsi-li-kən, ˈsi-lə-ˌkän\".
For the pronunciation meaning of ə (a turned (rotated) lower-case e)
see chart with mid-central vowel, near the middle of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet>.
(But note that <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-central_vowel>
says, "this symbol does not specifically represent an unrounded
vowel, and is frequently used for almost any unstressed obscure
vowel".)
--
jiw
Larry Jaques
wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:33:38 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:07:25 -0800, Rich Grise wrote:
>>>Denis G. wrote:
>>>
>>>> This week?s NOVA is about micro-technology [...] second show of the
>>> 4-part ?Making Stuff? series (Stronger, Smaller, Cleaner and Smarter).
>>>
>>>I was a lot more disappointed with that show than most people probably
>>>were. Even more so than I expected to be.
>
>The first show of the series, about stronger materials, was reasonably
>good (and far above my expectations for it) although in many places
>technical details were lacking that should have been included.
>Stupid, flashing screen cuts and horrid, irritating background music
>(which have been problems with many of the Nova Science Now programs)
>were notably absent.
>
>>>And when they got to the segment about silicon chips, after about the
>>>third time the guy said, "siliKAHN" I wanted to strangle him.
>>
>> Um, silicon is pronounced "silikahn" while silicone is pronounced
>> "silicone". Silicon (chips) is elemental while silicone (rubber stuff)
>> is a manmade compound. Pronunciation differs. Whassamattayou?
>
>Perhaps he wants them to say it like "silikun", ie, have the last
>syllable rhyme with gun rather than gone. Ie, "...cone" not an issue.
I guess it could be. I'm always gritting my teeth when someone says
"Hand me the silicon caulk." or that so-and-so is made with "silicone
chips". I'm less sensitive to "kun" vs "kahn", myself.
Rich Grise
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:33:38 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:07:25 -0800, Rich Grise wrote:
>>>Denis G. wrote:
>>>
>>>> This week?s NOVA is about micro-technology [...] second show of the
>>> 4-part ?Making Stuff? series (Stronger, Smaller, Cleaner and Smarter).
>>>
>>>I was a lot more disappointed with that show than most people probably
>>>were. Even more so than I expected to be.
>
> The first show of the series, about stronger materials, was reasonably
> good (and far above my expectations for it) although in many places
> technical details were lacking that should have been included.
> Stupid, flashing screen cuts and horrid, irritating background music
> (which have been problems with many of the Nova Science Now programs)
> were notably absent.
>
>>>And when they got to the segment about silicon chips, after about the
>>>third time the guy said, "siliKAHN" I wanted to strangle him.
>>
>> Um, silicon is pronounced "silikahn" while silicone is pronounced
>> "silicone". Silicon (chips) is elemental while silicone (rubber stuff)
>> is a manmade compound. Pronunciation differs. Whassamattayou?
>
> Perhaps he wants them to say it like "silikun", ie, have the last
> syllable rhyme with gun rather than gone. Ie, "...cone" not an issue.
>
> Pronunciation shown at <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silicon> is
> "IPA: /?s?l?k?n/", and elsewhere online, "\?si-li-k?n, ?si-l?-?k�n\".
>
> For the pronunciation meaning of ? (a turned (rotated) lower-case e)
> see chart with mid-central vowel, near the middle of
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet>.
> (But note that <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-central_vowel>
> says, "this symbol does not specifically represent an unrounded
> vowel, and is frequently used for almost any unstressed obscure
> vowel".)
>
Yeah - the schwa. It irks me no end that the extended ascii guys didn't
include that one.
But I did find a lot of words that are pronounced like "silicon" the right
way, most notably "carbon." You wouldn't say, "carBAHN," would you? ;-)
Here's a few:
abandon
apron
arson
bacon
badminton
bandwagon
baron
beacon
beckon
bison
bourbon
burgeon
button
cannon
canon
canyon
carbon
carton
cauldron
chairperson
at which point I quit picking and choosing, because it was getting boring.
Cheers!
Rich
Rich Grise
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:07:25 -0800, Rich Grise wrote:
>>>>Denis G. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This week?s NOVA is about micro-technology [...] second show of the
>>>> 4-part ?Making Stuff? series (Stronger, Smaller, Cleaner and Smarter).
>>>>
>>>>I was a lot more disappointed with that show than most people probably
>>>>were. Even more so than I expected to be.
>>
>>The first show of the series, about stronger materials, was reasonably
>>good (and far above my expectations for it) although in many places
>>technical details were lacking that should have been included.
>>Stupid, flashing screen cuts and horrid, irritating background music
>>(which have been problems with many of the Nova Science Now programs)
>>were notably absent.
>>
>>>>And when they got to the segment about silicon chips, after about the
>>>>third time the guy said, "siliKAHN" I wanted to strangle him.
>>>
>>> Um, silicon is pronounced "silikahn" while silicone is pronounced
>>> "silicone". Silicon (chips) is elemental while silicone (rubber stuff)
>>> is a manmade compound. Pronunciation differs. Whassamattayou?
>>
>>Perhaps he wants them to say it like "silikun", ie, have the last
>>syllable rhyme with gun rather than gone. Ie, "...cone" not an issue.
>
> I guess it could be. I'm always gritting my teeth when someone says
> "Hand me the silicon caulk." or that so-and-so is made with "silicone
> chips". I'm less sensitive to "kun" vs "kahn", myself.
>
he was complaining about the NASA talking heads calling everything
"looNAHR."
He speculated that it was some kind of thing about "radar" or "sonar"
being all modernistic and scientifical and stuff. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
dan
rec.crafts.metalworking on Thu, 27 Jan 2011 06:09:31 -0800 (PST):
>NOVA has become total goo-goo-gaa-gaa science, and is now intended for
>kids. I wish they would replay the original shows I remember from
>1976, these were not dumb down. Oh well, the intent is to get more
>kids in science. Just what I need more kids that are academic, and
>have no "knack".
You would like "connections" a BBC production from the 1970s. A
little dated, but still good.
--
Dan H.
northshore MA.
Pete C.
Connections was more than good, it was spectacularly good, and unlike
the noted current NOVA schlock, it had plenty of detail. There is a book
available and I believe you can get it on DVD now as well.
Rich Grise
> dan wrote:
>> ignator wrote in
>>
>> >kids. I wish they would replay the original shows I remember from
>> >1976, these were not dumb down. Oh well, the intent is to get more
>> >kids in science. Just what I need more kids that are academic, and
>> >have no "knack".
>>
>> You would like "connections" a BBC production from the 1970s. A
>> little dated, but still good.
>
> Connections was more than good, it was spectacularly good, and unlike
> the noted current NOVA schlock, it had plenty of detail. There is a book
> available and I believe you can get it on DVD now as well.
Yes, I concur. James something-or-other, I think. Burke? One of his shows
climaxed in "an atomic bomb <dramatic pause> in a _suitcase_! =:-O"
Cheers!
Rich
John R. Carroll
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:11:39 -0800, Rich Grise
>> <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I saw a sitcom where some guy swallowed a diamond ring and then
>>> crapped in a colander until he found it.
>>
>> That suuuuuure makes me miss watching TV...
>> Well, that one lived up to its name: a shitcom.
>>
>> --
>> Ask not what the world needs. Ask what makes you come
>> alive... then go do it. Because what the world needs
>> is people who have come alive. -- Howard Thurman
>
>
> I went to the local VA clinic this morning for blood work.
>
> "I dream of Jennie" was on the TV in the waiting room.
>
> Sad...
Hardly,
What's sad is Larry.
Well, "sad might not be correct.
Pathetic is probably closer to the truth.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> --Disappointing. Lots of 'they made it smaller' but nothing about
> HOW they made it smaller. Harrumph.
Hey!
The water was COLD!
--
John R. Carroll
technomaNge
>
> You would like "connections" a BBC production from the 1970s. A
> little dated, but still good.
Try it before you buy it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g
James Burke "Connections"
I didn't look up "The Secret Life of Machines" series
but it was around shortly after "Connection" ISTR.
technomaNge
--
Winston
Very Cool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjhyTcOy124
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jbk1uU_Jkk
Etc Etc.
--Winston
CaveLamb
Lewis Hartswick
>
> Same with scientific american- they dialed the smarts waaaay back.
>
> Dave
that graduates can hardly read let alone spell the media
(print and TV) have to degrade along with it to be able to
keep the "public" interested enough to watch/read.
If you want technical details you have to read the
technical journals. Not depend on the Pablum that TV dishes
out. :-)
...lew...
Lewis Hartswick
I think. (may have been into the 60s) About the same time it
became about 90 % Biological.
...lew...
Sunworshipper
wrote:
Funny how things come back around. Watched the first video, just
cause I liked that show back when. That guy was entertaining, IIRC he
was a brute along with his bro. at taking things apart.
Anyhow, I knew it, brine! I've been kicking that around for some time
now and forgetting to follow up on it. I have a 517 gallon fiberglass
double walled solar storage tank that I got from the late Sammy Davis
Jr. that is sitting in the corner of my shop. I can't afford to fill
it, the in-floor heating, and future solar experiments with antifreeze
so maybe this is the ticket.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine
Anyone know about saturated salt water and sodium chloride with metal
and plastic? I don't even know the difference, but have heard they use
the latter in tractor tires up here and it is as costly as antifreeze.
Salt water seems to be safer than antifreeze if it all leaked out.
As for the OP, yeah, they never tell the really cool stuff, like how
it is done. Can't be that much of a secret in the industry.
http://listverse.com/2010/02/06/top-10-unbelievable-miniatures/
SW
Larry Jaques
<lhart...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Rich Grise wrote:
>> Dave__67 wrote:
>>> On Jan 27, 9:09 am, ignator <fredhababorb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> NOVA has become total goo-goo-gaa-gaa science, and is now intended for
>>>> kids. I wish they would replay the original shows I remember from
>>>> 1976, these were not dumb down. Oh well, the intent is to get more
>>>> kids in science. Just what I need more kids that are academic, and
>>>> have no "knack".
>>> Same with scientific american- they dialed the smarts waaaay back.
>>
>> I used to have a supscription to SA; I dropped it in the 1970's when they
>> went warmingist.
Uh, don't you mean "coldingist", sir? The exact same data (up to that
year) they're looking at now -used- to point to another ice age,
remember? All I can say for sure is that "climate" scientists have a
long, long way to go, both in understanding and modeling, before
they're accurate. Humans can't predict squat...yet.
Humans 0, Mother Nature 1.
>I dropped mine when they went anti-nuclear about the late 50s,
>I think. (may have been into the 60s) About the same time it
>became about 90 % Biological.
Those fuels!
anorton
"Larry Jaques" <lja...@invalid.diversify.com> wrote in message
news:ic16k61o0d7vn2fra...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:26:04 -0700, Lewis Hartswick
> <lhart...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Rich Grise wrote:
>>> Dave__67 wrote:
>>>> On Jan 27, 9:09 am, ignator <fredhababorb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> NOVA has become total goo-goo-gaa-gaa science, and is now intended for
>>>>> kids. I wish they would replay the original shows I remember from
>>>>> 1976, these were not dumb down. Oh well, the intent is to get more
>>>>> kids in science. Just what I need more kids that are academic, and
>>>>> have no "knack".
>>>> Same with scientific american- they dialed the smarts waaaay back.
>>>
>>> I used to have a supscription to SA; I dropped it in the 1970's when
>>> they
>>> went warmingist.
>
> Uh, don't you mean "coldingist", sir? The exact same data (up to that
> year) they're looking at now -used- to point to another ice age,
> remember? All I can say for sure is that "climate" scientists have a
> long, long way to go, both in understanding and modeling, before
> they're accurate. Humans can't predict squat...yet.
> Humans 0, Mother Nature 1.
>
No, not really. There were a few speculative papers talking about a
possible cooling trend that were picked up and sensationalized in 1975 by
Newsweek and others. Even then, by far, most published research pointed to
warming not cooling. Pretty much all papers back then emphasized the need
to more study and more computer power. See here for more info:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
You stated above: "All I can say for sure is that "climate" scientists have
a long, long way to go, both in understanding and modeling, before they're
accurate." That would have been be an accurate conclusion 36 years ago, and
that is why you did not hear a call to action back then even if you did
catch pieces of the scientific debate. However, A lot of progress has been
made in 36 years, and the fundamental question of human-produced CO2 causing
warming is settled in the minds practically every one who has any expert
knowledge in the subject.
Pete C.
Calcium chloride is what they use in tractor tire ballast solution, same
stuff used for sidewalk ice melt.
Larry Jaques
I remember many headlines about ice and can't remember any about
warming from back then, and I took up the environmental sword at that
time. I've been recycling, reducing, and reusing for 40 years. That
site you linked is run by an Aussie AGWKer who usurped the skeptic
name, the blackguard. <sigh>
>You stated above: "All I can say for sure is that "climate" scientists have
>a long, long way to go, both in understanding and modeling, before they're
>accurate." That would have been be an accurate conclusion 36 years ago, and
>that is why you did not hear a call to action back then even if you did
>catch pieces of the scientific debate. However, A lot of progress has been
>made in 36 years, and the fundamental question of human-produced CO2 causing
>warming is settled in the minds practically every one who has any expert
>knowledge in the subject.
OK, show me a single one of those "climate" scientists who can make
their current modeling software -accurately- predict the future. Hell,
they can't even make it track the _past_ accurately, and they have
exact data for that. Go ahead, prove me wrong. ;)
Jayzuss, I can't believe that, even after the scandals about doctoring
data and keeping skeptic papers from getting published, you bastids
still don't accept facts and can't see that the burning wool is being
pulled over your eyes by scam artists going for the enviro-loot.
<deep sigh>
--
We're all here because we're not all there.
Rich Grise
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:26:04 -0700, Lewis Hartswick
> <lhart...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Rich Grise wrote:
>>> Dave__67 wrote:
>>>> On Jan 27, 9:09 am, ignator <fredhababorb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> NOVA has become total goo-goo-gaa-gaa science, and is now intended for
>>>>> kids. I wish they would replay the original shows I remember from
>>>>> 1976, these were not dumb down. Oh well, the intent is to get more
>>>>> kids in science. Just what I need more kids that are academic, and
>>>>> have no "knack".
>>>> Same with scientific american- they dialed the smarts waaaay back.
>>>
>>> I used to have a supscription to SA; I dropped it in the 1970's when
>>> they went warmingist.
>
> Uh, don't you mean "coldingist", sir?
Now that everybody's pointed this out, maybe it was the Great Ozone Hoax
that disgusted me.
Thanks,
Rich
Larry Jaques
Don't they _all_?
anorton
I am sorry, but these statements about models are just pure propaganda. For
past correlation see for example the plot on the second page of this paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
This whole myth about inaccurate models started with this fellow's testimony
to congress in 1988:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
He falsified the data by omission by excluding Hansen's most likely
scenarios.
Future predictions of various models with various assumptions can be found
here:
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/charles/uncertainties_in_model_predictio.htm
Yes they differ, but they all predict warming.
What convinces me is not even the models. You can do the calculation on
paper to find the LEAST possible effect:
http://www.hfranzen.org/GWPPT6.pdf
>
> Jayzuss, I can't believe that, even after the scandals about doctoring
> data and keeping skeptic papers from getting published, you bastids
> still don't accept facts and can't see that the burning wool is being
> pulled over your eyes by scam artists going for the enviro-loot.
> <deep sigh>
Another hallmark of propaganda is yesterday's unfounded and discredited
accusation is today's fact. No one has been found after investigations to
have doctored data (and there have been a lot of accusations thrown around).
There was the IPCC incident which involved an exagerated conclusion by one
of the technocrats writing the report (they repeated the conclusion of an
older paper about Himalyan glaciers that had previously been shown to be
incorrect). This was brought to light by other scientists who had
contributed to the report (not a very indicative of a conspiracy is it).
If you have a good background in physics you can look at the paper
calculations yourself. If not, you either believe there is this vast
conspiracy of tens of thousands of people lasting for 35 or 40 years or you
do not.
CaveLamb
Excellent points, anorton.
But
What seems to stick in people's craw is attributing a cause to the effect.
Larry Jaques
<ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If you have a good background in physics you can look at the paper
>calculations yourself. If not, you either believe there is this vast
>conspiracy of tens of thousands of people lasting for 35 or 40 years or you
>do not.
What I see is nature doing its thing, regardless of man, and nothing
man can do will change that.
If you want to "believe", go for it. Become a Luddite for all I care.
Just stop trying to foist it on humanity, eh?
We won't change each other's mind, so I'm done here.
anorton
"CaveLamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UOedneeYPdL18dnQ...@earthlink.com...
With either paper calculations or good models, you can vary the causes and
see the effects.
What is really sticking in peoples' craws is the fear that doing something
about it will ruin their lifestyle, ruin the economy and handicap us
relative to nations that do not abide by any agreements. All this could
happen with bad political policy but that is separate from the science.
My take on the policy side is that the current marginal cost of extracting
coal or oil is so low that the price will always drop to put out of business
any competing alternative, including nuclear. That would be fine if this
were the true cost of producing fossil fuels. But the cost to cope with
warming effects, fund wars to insure supply, prop up pretend-friendly
goverments and accompanying terrorist backlash, and so forth are not
included. If they were, the market would find an alternative. I think a
good start would be a gradually increasing tax over several years on just
imported fossil fuels, and use it to pay off national debt accumulated in
Iraq. This will never happen due to the infuence of Saudi Arabia with our
goverment and that the fact they are now 2nd largest owners of Fox News and
the Wall St. Journal.
CaveLamb
Are you going to "fix" this too???
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/
March 10, 2006: It's official: Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots have all but
vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet.
Like the quiet before a storm.
This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most intense solar
maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati
of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The next sunspot cycle
will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one," she says. If correct, the
years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity second only to the historic
Solar Max of 1958.
That was a solar maximum. The Space Age was just beginning: Sputnik was launched
in Oct. 1957 and Explorer 1 (the first US satellite) in Jan. 1958. In 1958 you
couldn't tell that a solar storm was underway by looking at the bars on your
cell phone; cell phones didn't exist. Even so, people knew something big was
happening when Northern Lights were sighted three times in Mexico. A similar
maximum now would be noticed by its effect on cell phones, GPS, weather
satellites and many other modern technologies.
Dikpati's prediction is unprecedented. In nearly-two centuries since the 11-year
sunspot cycle was discovered, scientists have struggled to predict the size of
future maxima�and failed. Solar maxima can be intense, as in 1958, or barely
detectable, as in 1805, obeying no obvious pattern.
The key to the mystery, Dikpati realized years ago, is a conveyor belt on the sun.
We have something similar here on Earth�the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt,
popularized in the sci-fi movie The Day After Tomorrow. It is a network of
currents that carry water and heat from ocean to ocean--see the diagram below.
In the movie, the Conveyor Belt stopped and threw the world's weather into chaos.
The sun's conveyor belt is a current, not of water, but of
electrically-conducting gas. It flows in a loop from the sun's equator to the
poles and back again. Just as the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt controls weather on
Earth, this solar conveyor belt controls weather on the sun. Specifically, it
controls the sunspot cycle.
Solar physicist David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center
(NSSTC) explains: "First, remember what sunspots are--tangled knots of magnetism
generated by the sun's inner dynamo. A typical sunspot exists for just a few
weeks. Then it decays, leaving behind a 'corpse' of weak magnetic fields."
Enter the conveyor belt.
see caption"The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping
up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The 'corpses' are dragged down at
the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun's magnetic dynamo can amplify
them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they
become buoyant and float back to the surface." Presto�new sunspots!
Photo Right: The sun's "great conveyor belt." [Larger image]
All this happens with massive slowness. "It takes about 40 years for the belt to
complete one loop," says Hathaway. The speed varies "anywhere from a 50-year
pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast)."
When the belt is turning "fast," it means that lots of magnetic fields are being
swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a
basis for forecasting: "The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996," says Hathaway.
"Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011."
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt
model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But
he disagrees with one point. Dikpati's forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway
believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
"History shows that big sunspot cycles 'ramp up' faster than small ones," he
says. "I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006
or 2007�and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011."
Who's right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction/