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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does the style of this ad (if not the substance) ring a bell as to the type of ad?
It is from a series popularly described as being “the hand of God ads”
If so, it might an alternate starting point.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/04/05/promise-of-a-golden-future/
Article in Pop Science (06:33:45) :
I found this article in Pop Science by Rachel Carson, (yes, the book author) in 1951:
http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=diEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=256&query=is+it+getting+warmer
The article starts on page 114.
———-
Two interesting things.
First, Anthony posted a “copy” of this article in 2008 (from some transcript on the web):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/25/who-knew-rachel-carson-climate-change-expert/
Second, there was a little debate in the comments from the above article about the veracity of the article’s claim, “In 1982, for example, the Knipowitsch sailed around Franz Josef Land for the first time in the history of arctic voyaging.” Anthony’s reply at the time was, “REPLY: It was “reissued” in 1982, see the Amazon link from the book title”
However, the popular science article (from your link above on p. 252) has the Knipowitsch circumnavigation as the year 1932. Google Books shows 1932 as well (see link below). This makes much more sense and I remember being bothered by the 1982 date when I read it at the time. There must have been a transcript error somewhere along the way.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PvkDFTtW6f4C&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=Knipowitsch+sailed+around+Franz+Joseph+Land&source=bl&ots=FCNkCcJQs6&sig=7u4bedXqKunE7LqDrJU4s48S-Fs&hl=en&ei=uOmjS-DCG8WAlAfEw6D_CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Someone else was looking for the same ad in 2003. I ran across this while searching.
Hopefully there will be enough to narrow down the search a bit.
The links given are dead though.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=245789
REPLY: That someone else was me, note the link to the ChicoER, which is my newspaper. The fellow searching on my behalf was an ad hobbyist – Anthony
Have done 1969 June thru September.
Looking at what I and others have reported, the following issues have now been searched:
1963-12
1965-01
1966-07
1966-08
1969-06
1969-07
1969-08
1969-09
1969-10
1969-11
1969-12
1973-04
1973-09
1974-03
1977-12
1979-06
1979-09
Some of the outliers in this list were searched because searches by such things as “nuclear”, “AEC”, “coal”, etc. showed promise.
I suggest that people doing searches post an updated list of everything searched by everyone, adding their own efforts to the list. You could start with the list I just posted. That way we should avoid duplication. Tomorrow (my UK time) I’ll work on the rest of 1969 and then go on to 1970.
Pamela Gray (08:18:50) :
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.
Such articles and ads can provide historical context. And clues.
steven mosher (10:28:07) :
Anthony just create a permanent project for this till they are all read
++++
Fire up “www.popscisearch.org”
Hey TWG, I am not sure about your recollection, and I reckon it helps to be carefully about this. As I recall there were no “Greenies” until the 1990s. It is true that in the 1980s there were was the Green party in Germany, but elsewhere there were environmentalists, conservationists, neo-hippies, peacenix etc.
Towards the end of the 1980s the polarisation of Left/Right (aka socialist-liberal vs. free market capitalist) was degenerating, but yet still prevailing in the anglophone west. The 70s & 80s ‘No Nukes’ was a mixed left-wing bag, and tied up with the anti-arms race and Ban The (nuclear) Bomb campaign.
So what’s the difference, and why does it matter? If there is no difference between 1980s conservationism (campaigning to stop effluent pouring into a stream, preservation of wilderness etc) compared to “Greenie” of the 2000s, then I guess we should also call “greenies” those that campaign for Yosemite NP, and the earlier naturalists like John Burroughs, Emerson and Teddy Roosevelt also ‘Greenies.’ Perhaps some of us think that all conservationist should be condemned outright, or condemned for the sins of their children. But consider that we all now enjoy the benefits of the conservation movement, and most of its successes in the the 1980s are now broadly accepted as beneficial. As part of that movement, it is offence to me when no distinction is made between what we were doing then compared to the Alarmism of Erhrich, Schneider, Hansen, Gore etc that now dominates the total political movement that usurped the “reds” at the end of the 80s and goes by the name of “Green.”
My goodness – those covers! Science, unconscious fantasy and the phallus! Can be the first to record… science porn?
Quoting:
“The presence of methane on Saturn’s moon Titan is cited as evidence supporting the formation of hydrocarbons without biology.”
Commenting:
OR…it is evidence of biology on Titan! You neglected that possibility! 😉
P.S.
In either case, it is a stunning revelation!
@Dodgy Geezer
“For doing this sort of work I suggest that someone sets up a long list of the Popular Science magazines which need looking into, divided up into work-sized chunks, so that volunteers can pick a chunk and cross it off the list.”
Your method is strangely similar to how westerners attempt to locate a given street address in the greater Tokyo metropolitan area. Just replace “Popular Science magazines” with “Google Maps” and you’ve got it!
brc (05:21:08) : All you guys complaining of no robots. Sure, there’s no human-shaped maid in your kitchen, but as I type, I have…
Nice point, brc.
I have seen exactly the same about artificial intelligence. (The Age of Spiritual Machines — Ray Kurzweil)
@H.R. (04:27:50) :
“Yup. Flying cars are in one of the issues, and we’re all STILL waiting for them to show up on the dealers’ lots.”
– – – – – – –
In the mid 1980’s, the public was assured that within ten years, we’d all be using flying jetpacks to commute to and from work.
I recall the add as a promotion for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, the idea was to shoe that the energy present in a lump uranium the size of a lump of coal could light the lights in a major city equivalent to a coal fied plant. I find it intersting that Alvin Weinberg who headed the ERDA which was promoting the fast breeder reactor in the late sixties used the CO2 argument for promoting safe nuclear power. I wonder if he really believed it or was using it to support his program. Now we are using Co2 to kill off coal power use. Weinberg along with Jimmy Carter also killed the fast breeder program when the problems looked to expensive to fund.
I googled for ads for nuclear power and got 1,410,000 hits.
I appended “1965” and got 44,000 hits.
I appended Popular Mechanics and got 3,350 hits.
Thus it might be possible to check a year per day and cover the suspect period in a couple of weeks. If unsuccessful, try again with Mechanics Illustrated, etc.
I tried a little googling in the Image section without any luck.
Snicker…
From the call-out box on Page 26 – Pop Sci October 1921 in “What Made the Weather So Hot This Summer?”
“Can We Blame It on the Sunspots?
A summer of unequaled drought in Europe – the Thames is drying up; London’s water supply threatened; Paris blinded by a hot spell unprecedented in fifty years; Switzerland baked by the sun until it’s lakes shrunk; such drought in parts of the United States that farmers appealed to traveling rainmakers.
These abnormalities of the spring and summer afflicted the earth in a sun-spot year. Perhaps there was no connection between sun-spots and the heat. But human comfort, convenience, and efficiency are so much affected by intemperate weather that any indication of such connection, making long-range weather prophecy feasible, is of interest to all. You will find in this article remarkable evidence of direct relationship between solar cyclones and earthly weather disturbances.”
From the accompanying image:
“The upper curve indicates variation in tree growth over an eleven-year cycle; the lower curve shows the sun-spot variations over the same period, suggesting that vegetative growth on earth is affected by the recurrence of storms on the sun.”
Been searching a while, coming up with a lot of dreck. However, the July 1901 issue shows another cycle of global warming. “Climate and Carbonic Acid”, pp242-256, talks about Arrhenius and the effects of CO2 on the climate. It is a well-written piece about the global “bank account” of CO2 and the various major deposits and withdrawals that change the balance. The author’s attitude is so strikingly different from that of modern climate scientists. He goes over the various theories and, while explaining the theories and reasons behind his beliefs, is very understated in his approach. You’d never picture this guy issuing dire warnings or threats.
Anyhow, back to the search function….
@berniel (17:08:02) :
toyotawhizguy (01:36:35) :
I recall that in the 1980’s, “Greenies” were in heavy opposition to nuclear power….
Hey TWG, I am not sure about your recollection, and I reckon it helps to be carefully about this. As I recall there were no “Greenies” until the 1990s.
– – – – – – –
Bernie, perhaps your views and mine differ partially due to being in different geographical locations. You are technically correct about no “Greenies” until the 1990s, since the term wasn’t in use in the ’80’s, but there really is not another good label for them either. It would be a stretch to call most of the activists of those days environmentalists, since the local groups in the ’80’s I was familiar with really didn’t have a good grasp on the scientific principles of ecology. They also tended to be alarmist, left-wing politically, anti-establishment, anti-science and anti-technology. And just as with today’s “Greenies”, they sought to impose their views and lifestyles onto the rest of us.
I have worked a number of years with a large group of Ph.D. scientists in a University setting, some of whom who are ecologists and environmental toxicologists, thus my view of environmentalism has been formed by my relationship to that group of scientists. My approach to conservation and environmentalism has always been scientific and analytical, with a touch of libertarianism thrown in. This centrist approach differs radically from the doctrines and methods used by groups such as Greenpeace and The Sierra Club.
BTW, the term “hippies” pretty much fell out of use in the USA by the mid ’70’s (your reference to “neo-hippies” is my first encounter with the term), and many of the members of that loose knit group later morphed into YUPPIES, although that label wasn’t coined until c. 1984. I can cite numerous times when I ran into male acquaintances, former classmates, etc, who in the late 60’s and early ’70’s had sported shoulder length hair, and wore jeans and tie-dyed shirts, and by the late ’70’s had flattop haircuts and were wearing business suits.
Rebivore (15:23:13) :
Have done 1969 June thru September.
Looking at what I and others have reported, the following issues have now been searched…
I spent an hour waiting for flickr to populate the archives site, and another half hour waiting for the January 1972 issue to appear.
Snip-snip-snippety-snipping server…
The one armed monster wind mill was built and did work. it was a noise control experiment, I believe, it’s now obsolete. There’s several smaller one armed windmills out there. Never assume that renewables wont work or don’t work. I’m a climate sceptic trained in that field.
They can, and in some places do work. They just haven’t been allowed to work. For renewables to work you need 17 % grid storage and that part of the puzzle keeps getting blocked. If renewables were really allowed to go forward you would see carbon trading die as the price falls to zero.
Brian Williams says:
March 19, 2010 at 11:14 am
There’s one thing that everyone seems to be missing (or I am deluded): all of the fossil fuels we burn contain carbon sequestered from the atmosphere of the time. Therefore, it’s impossible to release more co2 than has existed in the past. If you go back to the time when the first vegetation was laid down that is now oil or coal, surely all of that sequestered carbon must have been in the atmosphere, but the planet wasn’t burning up then, was it?
Can someone explain what I am missing here?
I attended a climate talk at a scientific conference a few years ago and asked this very question of the speaker. She had no answer.
@sHx (08:21:18) :
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.
– – – – – – –
Opposition to nuclear power in the USA ramped up quickly after this event in 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Given that my locality was less than 200 miles away from the accident, there was a lot of protest activity near me during the early ’80’s. Protest activity ramped up again in ’88 when the NRC wanted to locate a nuke dump site nearby. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the later reversal by many (formerly) anti-nuke activists in favor of nuclear power over fossil fuels as a result of the AGW /CO2 issue, but recall first learning about it in the mid 1990’s. Pro-nuclear is even now the official position of President Obama in 2010.
It appears that Nuclear power (i.e. fission) will continue to be a necessary evil until a breakthrough is made in nuclear fusion, which I believe is still several decades into the future. Both solar panels and wind turbines are still much too expensive, even with the government subsidies. Wind turbines have an enhanced future potential, but only if the approach is radically altered from the current mega-generation to widescale micro-generation.
BTW, when I tried to track down the origination of the term “Greenie”, the source I found said it originated in Australia.
DavidL and Brian Williams
Not only is all the carbon present in fossil fuels once in the atmosphere but also all the carbon present in carbonate rocks – meaning limestone. There are huge amounts of carbon sequestered in limestone. Probably many many times as much as in coal, oil and natural gas. There is a reason there is so little CO2 found in the atmosphere and that is the biosphere would like more. You could say it’s starving for more. I think that the little CO2 that is in the atmosphere is part of a fairly complicated carbon cycle.
The July 1977 issue has a Solar House on the cover and a great story about how that Solar House achieves energy savings using native materials. Whatever happened to these ideas? Well, most new houses now have better insulation and double-glazed windows, but the concept of heat storage has not caught on.
Thanks for the link! That issue also holds fond memories in a piece I wrote that features a photo of our daughters and one of me at about half my current age. Our granddaughters will get a kick out of seeing their mother and aunts when they were about their current age.