Since we recently had some assistance from an old 1976 copy of National Geographic which showed us some differences between temperature data then and now, it seems an opportune time to announce that Popular Science magazine archives are now online and totally free.
Check out the “one armed monster” on the right panel. Looks like a wind turbine nobody ever built.
Popular Science, in partnership with Google, just put its 137-year archive online, for free. Unfortunately, you can’t yet browse by issue. [Yes you can, I missed this on the first pass.] The interface is a keyword search box.
I need help from WUWT readers in locating something that may be found in the pages of Popular Science.
The entire magazine content is available, including ads. One specific ad I’ve been looking for for years (and I’m hoping someone will find it here) is from the late 60’s to early 70’s. It is an ad for nuclear energy, sponsored I think, by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The ad has a picture of a lump of coal, and says something like “Nuclear Energy – the clean fuel” and it speaks of the pollution problems (and Co2 if I recall) associated with coal. If anyone finds it, please let me know, there’s an interesting historical backstory to it that I’ve been itching to write for years, but I have to have this ad as proof.
It may also be in other magazines of the era.
Also, maybe our readers can find some relevant things about climate in this newly available resource. If not, maybe somebody can tell me how many times we’ve been promised flying cars and basement nuclear reactors.
Link: Search the PopSci Archives
h/t to BoingBoing blog
Either the system is overloaded (doesn’t seem possible with Google) or it just doesn’t like dial-up. I’m getting no results at all. Perhaps the search engine “forgets” the old requests it hasn’t been able to deliver yet too soon to cope with a slow connection.
Did find an interesting example of green energy hype among the current article listings:
Pop Sci: “With Artificial Photosynthesis, A Bottle of Water Could Produce Enough Energy To Power A House”
From the linked Scientific American piece:
Yup, that’ll sure please the neighbors.
How many kilowatt-hours can one expect to be generated over four hours by a massive five by six meter array, as straight electricity?
Kate (06:00:43) :
“Search engines don’t find ads. Ad pages are not included in the searchable fields.”
Can’t speak to Google’s magazine archive but the newspaper archive does include advertisements, both classified and display, in search results.
Check out http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=fQckAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lyUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4799,2813161&dq=appliances+general-electric+-classified&hl=en
Image of an actual page of the July 17 issue of The Milwaukee Journal showing a “General Electric” display ad for appliances.
Pretty AMAZING, eh?
So, in the context of my earlier post, thinking that Anthony’s ad might also have been placed in a newspaper, I tried some of terms that I had suggested above.
No hits, yet, possibly ’cause it’s the smaller papers that have their actual printed pages archived. Larger papers, like NYT, Chicago Trib, LA Times have pay-per-view access to the items.
Larus, I totally agree. Gray papers, such as can be found in this magazine, should not be relied upon for any kind of serious climate discussion, much less used to make predictions of future climate change. Right on.
Dave, the solution is to begin in Elementary school. Back in the day, we used to study “lift” starting in the 4th grade. Now flight is hardly mentioned. Why bother, we let someone else do our flying for us. If we want to start using flying cars, we need to start teaching grade school kids the aerodynamic properties of flight. The same can be said for teaching kids how to drive on terra firma. We wait till they are in their teens before we even mention it. And then they spend, oh maybe 5 hours studying it, get their license, and crash.
MODERATOR/ANTHONY – VERY IMPORTANT!!!
ARTICLE ON RAPIDLY MELTING GLACIERS 75 – 100 YEARS AGO!
Just want to make sure the January 1932 Popular Science article by James Nevin Miller on melting glaciers is not overlooked.
The article states that by 1932 the Muir Glacier in Alaska had melted to just one-half its size of 25 years earlier. Plus many other observations and theories as to why.
This article deserves to be a separate post from Anthony (IMO)
REPLY: Got it, thanks. -A
Went back and reread the photo caption. To be clear it is the 10 mile long Cushing Plateau ice field where the Muir Glacier meets the sea – not the entire glacier – that has melted in half over 25 years.
September 1977
Special Report Drought: Our Changed Weather – Part 1
This is an excellent article from before the politicization of climate change that states that climate change is not unusual, it is due to changes in sunspot activity, orbital and rotation shifts, ocean patterns etc.
I think Anthony will have the opportunity for a number of future posts based on this treasure trove.
My activist primary school teachers had me do a project whinging about the operational altitude of Concorde (70,000 ft Vs. 40,000 ?) and how it’s high Contrail would destroy something up there and would have been around 1969-1970.
An observation – Back In 1977 scientists were simply scientists and had not yet become science-advocates. Hopefully the profession will return to its integral roots some day.
Pamela Gray (07:12:15) :
Larus, I totally agree. Gray papers, such as can be found in this magazine, should not be relied upon for any kind of serious climate discussion, much less used to make predictions of future climate change. Right on.
I disagree, those old articles show exactly the same conditions that we have now, firmly establishing that nothing happening now is “Unprecedented” as the IPCC claims, especially regarding Glaciers, the Acrtic and Sea Ice.
In fact I am amazed at how well they understood “Climate” in 1906.
Popular Science August 1983 pg 66: Nowcasting – New weather computers pinpoint deadly storms
Mentions Boulder Colo new supercomputer predicting weather in 3D.
I seem to remember seeing ads like the one you are looking for in Scientific Americans of that vintage
imapopulist, these are grey papers. My advice to Anthony on reviewing these articles: Wouldn’t touch them even if they looked like food to a starving person.
Minor point – But the War is Over:
‘AGW’ is OUT, ‘AGC’ is IN (Substitute the word ‘Change’ for ‘Warming’ and it covers all the bases. Subscribers are no longer bound by ‘warming’, and ‘deniers’ can join without fear of intimidation or reprisal. Annual Subscriptions = Pledge of Annual Gross Taxable Income; Lifetime Memberships Available for those with sponsorship by Three Lifetime Members click mannmadeclimatechange.com, jonesclimatedatacenters.com, or algoreforabuck.com for more information;-)
toyotawhizguy (01:36:35) :
I recall that in the 1980’s, “Greenies” were in heavy opposition to nuclear power. “Greenies” also were in opposition to the waste sites being established in pristine wilderness, …
Then when the “Greenies” later decided that CO2 was a more important issue than nukes, many changed their position.
You recall it correctly. As an Aussie Green voter for the last ten years and a fresh AGW sceptic (yup, there is a few of us), I have watched with dismay the softening of the Green politics with regard to nuclear power. I think the environmentalist movements’ strong opposition to the nuclear option at the time was the correct policy, and that opposition ought to continue. All things considered, nuclear power plants are more dangerous to humanity and to environment than coal-fired power plants. It is a real shame that the Green movement have been duped into thinking the CO2 is more dangerous than Uranium-235.
Pascvaks (08:20:47) :
“Minor point – But the War is Over:
‘AGW’ is OUT, ‘AGC’ is IN ”
___________________
Sorry but, this is soooooo important:
The ‘new’ title for True Believers is “Change-ist” (or Change’ers, or Change-ees, or… -you get the idea, right?)
Don’t know if this was up when you posted, but you can browse by Issue.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zyUDAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_all_issues_r&cad=3&atm_aiy=1950#all_issues_anchor
about middle of the page will let you select a decade and then make available all individual issues for that decade.
I was in high school in 1970. In grade school every kid, including me, had a wooden airplane (or in my case, several, as I kept breaking them). Paper airplanes were flown regularly in class and with “death to the loser” competitions between designs. We studied the way the upper wing curve and the lower wing curve of real planes provides lift. We compared that to the design of the Wright brother’s craft and why those wing designs provided lift. We studied the way the tail moves the plane this way or that, and why (we didn’t get to study wing flaps, just studied the basics). It was great fun. Then rockets came a long and everything changed to whatever would explode an object into space.
Popular Science, Page 74, May 1969
Are We changing Our Weather?
….
In fact, the whole world has been cooling off since 1940. Before that, the earth had been warming up for a considerably longer time.
The switch to cooling was first spotted by Dr, J. Murray Mitchell Jr., a climatologist for the U.S. Environmental Science Services Administration. Arctic winter temperatures have now dropped an average of six degrees, he says.
…..
Some meteorologists think inadvertent weather modification is overrated, compared to changes that may be taking place in natural weather forces-which are also difficult to measure. The earth’s weather engine is so intricate that it still resists total scientific understanding.
Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence to justify concern. Through sheer numbers and increasing complexity of civilization, man is capable of tampering with the weather by accidentally changing the intricate patterns that produce our climate.
Nothing yet but I found a Chrysler boat ad that made me think about all the warmists doom and gloom predictions. March 1970, page 52. Shows some water skiers in a boat on an icy lake waiting for the ice to melt so they can ski. They must have listened to the warmists claiming all the ice was going to melt.
You realize that I’m likely to get little work done today going through the archive don’t you?
How about Popular Mechanics or Mechanics Illustrated?
Is there any way to search them online too?
Man, this is GREAT stuff! The ads might be the best part.
$189 radio in 1929! That’s like what, $50,000 today? 😉
This is great, I loved that magazine back in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
I wish the Popular Electronics archive from the 1960’s and 1970’s would be made available someday. There were some pretty cool tube hi-fi amp projects published “back in the day”.
Anthony, here is how you search by issue.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mgEAAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s#all_issues_anchor
Alvin M. Weinberg is the one responsible for AGW hysteria.
Looks to me like he used it as a way to promote nuclear power after hearing of the theory from Roger Revelle
http://www.ornl.gov/ornlhome/news_items/news_061019.shtml
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Revelle/revelle_3.php
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115×71130
Third link has a pic of Alvin Weinberg with John and Jackie Kennedy and Al Gore Sr. in the comments.
It’s not hard to join the dots.
Don’t post if it is too far off topic,or all been covered before.