Here is an open thread to discuss the massive Oklahoma City tornado.
Here is an open thread to discuss the massive Oklahoma City tornado.
It’s Obvious, Isn’t It?
- Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution
- Link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in our ancestors
- Strength was a proxy for ability to defend or acquire resources
- There is no link between women’s physical strength and political views
Men who are strong are more likely to take a right-wing stance, while weaker men support the welfare state, researchers claim.
Their study discovered a link between a man’s upper-body strength and their political views.
Scientists from Aarhus University in Denmark collected data on bicep size, socio-economic status and support for economic redistribution from hundreds in America, Argentina and Denmark.
The figures revealed that men with higher upper-body strength were less likely to support left-wing policies on the redistribution of wealth.
Men with less upper body strength are more likely to support the welfare state – like Labour leader Ed Miliband
But men with low upper-body strength were more likely to put their own self-interest aside and support a welfare state.
The researchers found no link between upper-body strength and redistribution opinions among women.
Professor Michael Petersen said: ‘In all three countries, physically strong males consistently pursued the self-interested position on redistribution.
‘However physically weak males were more reluctant to assert their self-interest – just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation between individuals.
‘While many people think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has, in a sense, always been with our species.
‘Political views are designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’
The findings were published in the journal Psychological Science.
Professor Petersen added: ‘Many previous studies have shown that people’s political views cannot be predicted by standard economic models.
‘This is among the first studies to show that political views may be rational in another sense, in that they’re designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’
Yes, there’s a cat in the video!
Uploaded on Jul 19, 2010 by engineerguyvideo
Bill reveals the importance of matches in the 19th century; he shares how adding phosphorous to them revolutionized life – in both good and bad ways.
These could come in handy after a disaster.
Uploaded on Mar 10, 2009 by concretecanvaspg
Concrete Canvas Shelters are rapidly deployable hardened shelters that require only water and air for construction. A 25sqm model can be deployed by 2 people without any training in under 40 minutes and is ready to use in under 24 hours.
The shelters are fabricated from Concrete Canvas, an innovative material technology that allows concrete to be used in a completely new way, in a multitude of applications.
Good Morning! I thought this morning we would do some physics.
In a match-up between quantum theory and the general theory of relativity, Einstein’s theory has once again come out victorious: this time in an orbiting pair of ultra-dense stars.
The star pair, about 7,000 light-years from Earth provides a unique opportunity to test the boundary between two theories of physics, according to SPACE.com.
Though Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity beautifully predicts how the gravity of massive objects curves space-time, it isn’t complete: it can’t explain the weird behavior of the ultra-small world, which is described by quantum mechanics.
For extremely small, yet extremely massive objects, such as black holes, the two theories clash and scientists have no physical description of exactly what goes on.
Enter the star pair. The couple, an extremely massive neutron star that spins around 25 times per second orbited by a tiny white dwarf, is both massive and tiny enough to reveal the behavior at the boundary between the two theories.
The white dwarf is an aging star that is cooling down over time. The neutron star is twice the mass of the sun, yet is just 12 miles (19 kilometers) wide, making gravity on the surface of the star 300 billion times as strong as Earth’s pull, SPACE.com reported.
Scientists observed the star system using the Very Large Telescope.
“A quick, on-the-spot analysis made me realize that the pulsar was quite a heavyweight. It is twice the mass of the sun, making it the most massive neutron star that we know of and also an excellent laboratory for fundamental physics,” John Antoniadis, a doctoral student at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy and lead author of a paper reporting the find, published in the April 26 issue of the journal Science, told SPACE.com.
To see whether Einstein’s theory held in the system, the team looked at the motions of the binary system. General relativity holds that massive objects warp space-time such that light will follow a curved path when under its pull. This particular binary star system should radiate ripples in space-time, known as gravitational waves. Alternate theories predict that the white dwarf would move slightly differently.
Sure enough, Einstein’s theory perfectly predicted the star pair’s motion.
“Our radio observations were so precise that we have already been able to measure a change in the orbital period of 8 millionths of a second per year — exactly what Einstein’s theory predicts,” Paulo Freire, another team member at the Max Planck Institute, told SPACE.com.
Though the new study can’t solve the conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity, other experiments, such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, will hunt for other gravitational waves to test Einstein once again.
A common question on “How Old Are You Really” online quizzes asks for the relationship between a No. 2 pencil and an audio tape cassette. The answer? It’s in the hole, and this is the lead in to Side A on The Overnight Open Thread.
My source for that .gif is dead, but that doesn’t prevent us from posting it as a happy sing-a-long tune as an introduction to The Overnight Open Thread.
Good Morning, lets take a look at the phenomenon of Radar Blooms this morning for the Saturday Lecture Series:
Please Click the Below link for the entire article:
There are a lot of interesting anomalies that you may see on displays that show NEXRAD (or any kind of) weather radar data. Some are caused by software, some are caused by the radar misinterpreting what it sees. None are worth some of the conspiracy theories that non-scientists have come up with.
Last month, blog reader Mike asked what is responsible for the radar “bloom” (or “radar blobs”) that occurs nationwide, but especially in the Southeast U.S. in Spring and Fall. What he is referring to is the gradual growth of non-precipitation objects on radar after sunset (and the data fades after sunrise). During the night, this causes a large blob around each radar site. I have uploaded some examples from that night.
EXAMPLES OF RADAR BLOOM: In the Huge AccuWeather Raw U.S. Loop and the Huge NWS Raw U.S. Loop, you are seeing the raw data from each NEXRAD radar plotted on a U.S. map. But in the Small AccuWeather Processed Northeast Loop, AccuWeather’s computer algorithms and meteorologists have attempted to “clean up” the radar by taking out areas of data that they thought were invalid. This caused the “cookie cutter” hole around Indianapolis and the lack of clutter in the Southeast. The “C”-shaped object over the Great Lakes is rain from a low pressure system, though you can still see the “blooms” around and inside it. There are also a couple things of note in the Indianapolis Radar Site Raw Loop – the “spike” in the first frame is a “sunset spike” and is caused by the radar being temporarily “bllinded” by the setting sun. The blobs of blue and brown in the Northeast quadrant are areas of rain moving south from the aforementioned low pressure system.
I knew what Mike was referring to was a type of “Ground Clutter” – also known as false echoes – a wide-ranging problem with weather radars, I just didn’t know what specifically was causing it. So, I set out to do some research on Google, but I couldn’t come up with an explanation, and apparently neither could anyone else who writes blogs or web pages. In the late 1990′s, I wrote several articles on radar anomalies and Ground Clutter for AccuWeather.com properties — but I never was able to explain this one.
NOAA [JessePedia], who owns and operates the radars in the national network, has an excellent page explaining how radar beams work. It included the illustrations below about Superrefraction and Ducting (the radar beam is shown in comparison to a faded “normal” radar beam at the top of the illustrations). In both cases, the radar beam curves quicker than the curve of the Earth. I suspected this was to blame for the Radar Bloom.
In the case of “Ducting” the radar beam bends so much that it hits the earth, causing extremely dBZ returns (because the ground is much thicker than your average raindrop when the beam runs into it). dBZ, or “decibels of Z” is the way radar data (hopefully precipitation) is measured. The colors you see on radars correspond to dBZ levels, higher meaning more intense. When the radar beam hits the Earth, this phenomenon is called “high dBZ anomalous propagation” and is a real problem because, to the untrained eye, it looks just like thunderstorms.
EXAMPLES OF HIGH-DBZ AP: Notice on this example, a Northeast Still Image, how the high dBZ AP in Canada and New York looks a lot like the thunderstorms off the coast of the Carolinas. If you Download* This Northeast Loop then you can see that, while the thunderstorms move, the AP stays still. On the
Binghamton Radar Site Raw Loop, notice how the AP mimicks the mountain tops, because the beam won’t make it to the valleys once it hits the mountains. Notice also in the northwest part of the image how there are no echoes over the lake, because the surface is too flat to reflect back to the radar.
Other websites confirmed this explaination of Ducting, but while this is great, it doesn’t explain radar “bloom” which is much lower on the dBZ scale* (see below), nor does it explain why it grows and shrinks with time.
Since I couldn’t get an answer online, I wrote in to the NOAA radar experts. After a couple of returned emails due to a bad form on their site, I finally got in contact with Joe Chrisman from the ROC (Radar Operations Center) Engineering Branch, who explained:
When the sun goes down and the surface begins to cool, the change in refractive index in the lowest few (to several) hundred feet of the atmosphere tend to bend the radar beam toward the surface. This bending holds the radar beam near the surface for extended distances, where it encounters scatterers that would not normally be available above the boundary layer. These scatterers include insects, bats, aerosols, particulate matter, etc., and account for the increased radar return referred to as “radar bloom.”
To decode that answer a little, what he’s saying is that it is, in fact, superrefraction that causes radar bloom.
In the case of superrefraction, the beam bends low to the ground but, unlike Ducting, it doesn’t run into the ground (until it gets out of range anyway). With the beam so close to the ground, it keeps running into multiple insects/dust/other particulates as it moves outward from the radar. As the superrefraction becomes worse, the radar beam travels farther than it had previously, and encounters even more of these particles, causing the amount of clutter on the screen to “grow.” As the superrefraction decreases in the morning, it shrinks.
Why does refraction itself (be it Super, Sub or Ducting) occur? That’s a more complicated question and I’ll let you read the NOAA page for a lengthy explanation. Basically, where the beam travels with respect to the Earth’s curvature is determined by a complex equation of pressure, temperature and humidity that can vary greatly in small distances, and it’s possible you might have more than one type of refraction occurring at the same time.
P.S. “Trophospheric Ducting” is a similar phenomenon by which radio waves propagate thousands of miles further than they normally would due to atmospheric conditions, causing, in one documented case, an FM radio in Hawaii to pick up a radio station from Mexico (if you have an FM radio in your car and have trouble picking up FM stations in your own town then you understand why that would be quite unusual).
New Orleans to Hammond Louisiana in real time. Best way to view it is to open it up in a separate window, keep the sound on, and pay attention when the speed kicks in. Don’t miss the “Lac Pontchartrain” bridge. From the comments:
“At least 70% of America’s railroads still use wooden cross ties, but can certainly do higher speeds even so. The reason for the slow speed across Lake Ponchartrain is the fact that if there is a derailment, the chances are less that the train will end up in the drink. The train’s maximum speed in this video – given the schedule of 73 Miles in 60 Minutes – is 79 MPH, with the average speed of 72 MPH.”
For those who thought I was gonna post an Arlo Guthrie tune, you’re out of luck. I posted Steve Goodman because he wrote it especially for those of us who still ride the rails on The Overnight Open Thread.
website design was Built By David