Slashdot Mirror
New Science Museum - Now With Real Science!
OpenYourEyes writes "There is a new
science museum, run by the National
Academy of Science, that has opened in DC. So what? Unklike many
museums which simplify their message or use fake data, the exhibits at
the Koshland Science
Museum are all based on real research, real reports, and real
science. Each one contains references to the research reports and
data they are based on. Exhibits on
DNA, for example, use actual (and long!) DNA sequences to help
illustrate how DNA plays a role in disease, agriculture, and
criminology. There are also exhibits on
Global Climate Change and
The Wonders of Science."
April 23rd on Talk of the Nation, Ira Flato spoke to Peter Schultz, the Exhibits and Public Programs Director.
Here's the obligatory link
Also a lot of fun was the History of Science Museum in Florence.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
From the website:
"Best enjoyed by visitors ages 13 and older, the museum will explore current scientific issues at the core of many of the nation's public policy decisions, as presented in reports by the National Academies."
Admissions:
Adults: $5
Seniors (65+), Active Duty Military (w/ ID), Students (w/ ID), Children(ages 5 - 18): $3
So the target age range is a little higher... Interesting to note that children 5-13 have to pay $3 to see exhibits that are not meant for them.
AnimeNEXT 2004 (NY/NJ/CT, June 18-20) "the next evolution of anime convention"
I found your post amusing. I consider this /. story to be yet another -1, Troll. I used to work for a science museum. Never ran into any false stuff. If simplification is a crime then it should be reserved for *research institutions*. Science museums, on the other hand, serve only the casual public. Because of the obvious non sequitur and the red flag of "unlike other science museums...", I hope this thread has a quick death.
Laws are for people with no friends.
A common mistake people make is to relate local fluctuations in temperature/weather to long-term global patterns. This is akin to noticing that several of your neighbors are short and concluding that average height of the world must be decreasing.
When it's a cold winter, I hear people chortling over how ridiculous global warming is. And when it's a warm winter, I hear people fretting over how global warming must be taking place.
My point here isn't to argue that global warming isn't happening (that involves complicated calculations using historical air samples in artic ice cores, etc) -- but people should realize that recent local weather patterns are insignificant in comparison to the larger scheme.
a: carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere (see the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory)
b: carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (graph)
So an increase in CO2 should lead to an increase in temperature, which we observe. Any questions?
I good piece of art is one where you can look back on it and say "this depicts how people were back then" or something. It speaks for them.
I think you may be confusing art with a history textbook.
Fuck if my theoretical [if I paid taxes] tax dollars went to the art it should at least represent me!
Representation is not what art is about. Plenty of lousy movies represent us, but I would say they are not art. A video camera can capture you and television represent you. This is also not art.
Art is about something completely different than representation although it sometimes does represent us. If people like you chose who got art funding, museums would be terribly bland.
bit trollent
Something that most of the articles about this place have pointed out, but /. predictably failed to, is that this is largely designed for political purposes. The goal is to get lobbyists and senators to show up at this place, since they haven't the slightest idea what the hell these dnas are that everybody keeps talking about.
"This is not an artifact-based museum," Peter Schultz, the museum's exhibits and public programs director, told The Scientist. "It's focused on how science can better inform decision making."
It's not really aimed at the average joe, it's aimed at the guy that gets presentations on whether or not to fund some kind of genetic disease research project, or whatever. All the exibits are geared towards the sort of things beaurocrats have to deal with these days, but don't really understand. The exhibits rotate, but they all have a goal in mind. The first three are, respectively, to keep congress from going all knee-jerk on genetic engineering/promote the FBI DNA database, to get politicians to quit pretending global warming is imaginary, and to show off cool shit like dark matter so the NSF can get better funding next year.
Yes, question: therefore does the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause Global Climate Change? Be careful how you answer that. If you look at the historical record, increases in temperature PRECEDED the increase in CO2 levels. This is due to CO2 being released into the atmosphere from the oceans as they are warmed. Most likely temperature fluctuations are related to increased solar activity.
yes. we can even quantify how much energy the CO2 traps (radiative forcing): 1.46 W/m^2. (Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations) A little more than the 1 W/m^2 difference between the max and min of the 11-year solar cycle. Total change in solar radiative solar forcing since the Maunder Minimum (associated with the "little ice age") is estimated at 0.7 W/m^2
The difficult part of this process is figuring out the feedbacks between CO2, water vapor, vegetation, and clouds. And then we have to include the other things humans do to the Earth that have implications for global climate--other greenhouse gasses, aerosol emissions, deforestation, reforestation, etc. Some of these may offset or intensify CO2 induced warming. Of course, the "cure" (stabiliazation mechanisms) could be worse than the disease (a change in monsoon patterns, for instance.)
And your evidence for this is