A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

bbc inacuracies



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 17th 17, 09:46 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,944
Default bbc inacuracies

When the Casini probe was due to crash into Saturn the news said it was
running out of power in its nuclear generator. This was not only untrue, but
other bbc programs like BBC Inside Science had got it right, saying it was
low on fuel for the jets that pointed it when gyros were not suitable.
I just wonder why they do not actually get an expert in for news reports
when they are writing them. They did correct it afterwards, but really
shoddy work indeed. Does not bode well for other stories really. Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!


  #2  
Old September 17th 17, 10:09 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 949
Default bbc inacuracies

On 17/09/2017 09:46, Brian Gaff wrote:
When the Casini probe was due to crash into Saturn the news said it was
running out of power in its nuclear generator. This was not only untrue, but
other bbc programs like BBC Inside Science had got it right, saying it was
low on fuel for the jets that pointed it when gyros were not suitable.
I just wonder why they do not actually get an expert in for news reports
when they are writing them. They did correct it afterwards, but really
shoddy work indeed. Does not bode well for other stories really. Brian


It's the same with all media stories. They're all accurate except the
ones where you know the facts.

  #3  
Old September 17th 17, 10:12 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 630
Default bbc inacuracies

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:46:40 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:


When the Casini probe was due to crash into Saturn the news said it was
running out of power in its nuclear generator. This was not only untrue,
but other bbc programs like BBC Inside Science had got it right, saying
it was low on fuel for the jets that pointed it when gyros were not
suitable. I just wonder why they do not actually get an expert in for
news reports when they are writing them. They did correct it
afterwards, but really shoddy work indeed. Does not bode well for other
stories really. Brian


They said it had less than one percent gas left for the thrusters in the
BBC report I heard. BBC gets a press hand out and somebody interprets it.
If you have ever been involved in anything the media reports you know
that the report will be inaccurate


so what about the other stories?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #4  
Old September 17th 17, 11:01 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,857
Default bbc inacuracies

On 17/09/2017 09:46, Brian Gaff wrote:
When the Casini probe was due to crash into Saturn the news said it was
running out of power in its nuclear generator. This was not only untrue, but
other bbc programs like BBC Inside Science had got it right, saying it was
low on fuel for the jets that pointed it when gyros were not suitable.
I just wonder why they do not actually get an expert in for news reports
when they are writing them. They did correct it afterwards, but really
shoddy work indeed. Does not bode well for other stories really. Brian


Which news report was this?

Incidentally, I find the excessive, unremarked, use of animations and
"artists impressions" in astronomical programmes annoying. The last Sky
at Night programme consisted almost exclusively of these: sometimes it's
obvious as the image shows the spacecraft itself or the quality is too
good. Some pictures that show the surface of a planet or moon it's not
obvious if it's real, enhanced or just made up.

I think they should show more actual images, even if they have false
colours.

--
Max Demian
  #5  
Old September 17th 17, 11:10 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 630
Default bbc inacuracies

In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:46:40 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:


When the Casini probe was due to crash into Saturn the news said it was
running out of power in its nuclear generator. This was not only untrue,
but other bbc programs like BBC Inside Science had got it right, saying
it was low on fuel for the jets that pointed it when gyros were not
suitable. I just wonder why they do not actually get an expert in for
news reports when they are writing them. They did correct it
afterwards, but really shoddy work indeed. Does not bode well for other
stories really. Brian


I never cease to be depressed by the scientific and technical ignorance
of media journalists.


a great many years ago I had to go and solve the Ceefax reception problems
of someone who had just been appointed Editor of Ceefax. He showed me a
page of garbled text; I went to "picture" and saw that the result was so
noisy it was almost unviewable. I said "that's not a very good picture" to
which he replied "I wouildn't know - I'm only a journalist." Until a month
before he'd been the BBC's Science Correspondent and, of course, saw studio
quality pictures every day.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #6  
Old September 17th 17, 01:45 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,169
Default bbc inacuracies

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:01:49 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

Incidentally, I find the excessive, unremarked, use of animations and
"artists impressions" in astronomical programmes annoying. The last Sky
at Night programme consisted almost exclusively of these: sometimes it's
obvious as the image shows the spacecraft itself or the quality is too
good. Some pictures that show the surface of a planet or moon it's not
obvious if it's real, enhanced or just made up.


Couldn't agree more. Patrick Moore's black and white cardboard
captions on wobbly music stands with pins and pulltabs for the limited
animations that they occasionally managed to do had the advantage that
they made it very clear that we were not looking at the real thing. It
required some imagination from the viewer, and an understanding that
there was a good reason why we just didn't have high quality real
images of everything.

I think they should show more actual images, even if they have false
colours.


Indeed. That as I understand it was the entire point of sending a
spacecraft off to spend half a lifetime travelling nine hundred
million miles with a bunch of cameras. Why bother with all that if
you're just going to make something up?

Rod.
  #7  
Old September 17th 17, 02:03 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,698
Default bbc inacuracies

While generally I'm not slow to complain about the many scientific
inaccuracies in media reporting, I suspect the following complaint is
more politically than scientifically motivated ...

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:25:38 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

I saw a demonstration on one of the BBC TV magazine programmes a week
or so ago by 'a scientist', who was repeating the experiment done by
John Tyndall in the 1860's to demonstrate that CO2 in the atmosphere
absorbs infra-red radiation and is thus responsible for global
warming. What 'the scientist' failed to mention was that Tyndall
tested a range of atmosphere gases for their IR-absorbing capacity,
and concluded that water vapour was the strongest absorber and was the
principal gas controlling air temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall


But what John Tyndall probably didn't, and apparently you don't, know
is that water vapour has such a short lifetime in the atmosphere, days
to weeks, that, when considering the impact of man's pollution on
climate, it is considerably less relevant than the things that hang
around for years/decades/centuries. It's main relevance is as an
amplifier for increases in temperature caused by CO2, methane, etc. So
the real problem is these other gases with long atmospheric lifetimes
- take care of them and the water vapour will look after itself.

Was there any mention of water vapour by 'the scientist' or even the
presenter? Was there heck!


I didn't see the program, but, given the above, it doesn't sound to me
as though water vapour was necessarily relevant to the point being
made by the programme.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #8  
Old September 17th 17, 03:21 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Phi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 284
Default bbc inacuracies


"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
While generally I'm not slow to complain about the many scientific
inaccuracies in media reporting, I suspect the following complaint is
more politically than scientifically motivated ...

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:25:38 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

I saw a demonstration on one of the BBC TV magazine programmes a week
or so ago by 'a scientist', who was repeating the experiment done by
John Tyndall in the 1860's to demonstrate that CO2 in the atmosphere
absorbs infra-red radiation and is thus responsible for global
warming. What 'the scientist' failed to mention was that Tyndall
tested a range of atmosphere gases for their IR-absorbing capacity,
and concluded that water vapour was the strongest absorber and was the
principal gas controlling air temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall


But what John Tyndall probably didn't, and apparently you don't, know
is that water vapour has such a short lifetime in the atmosphere, days
to weeks, that, when considering the impact of man's pollution on
climate, it is considerably less relevant than the things that hang
around for years/decades/centuries. It's main relevance is as an
amplifier for increases in temperature caused by CO2, methane, etc. So
the real problem is these other gases with long atmospheric lifetimes
- take care of them and the water vapour will look after itself.

Was there any mention of water vapour by 'the scientist' or even the
presenter? Was there heck!


I didn't see the program, but, given the above, it doesn't sound to me
as though water vapour was necessarily relevant to the point being
made by the programme.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html



Methane has a residence time of 12 years in the atmoshere with a warming
coefficient of 21 times that of CO2 at 5 years residence.

  #9  
Old September 17th 17, 07:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,698
Default bbc inacuracies

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 17:44:00 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

But water vapour is continually being recycled, mainly be evaporation
from the oceans.
[...]
Water
vapour is present in the atmosphere at roughly 100 times greater
concentration than CO2, depending on air temperature and altitude. To
claim that CO2 is the all-important greenhouse gas is perverse.
[...]
It's main relevance is as an
amplifier for increases in temperature caused by CO2, methane, etc. So
the real problem is these other gases with long atmospheric lifetimes
- take care of them and the water vapour will look after itself.


The rate of evaporation of water increases with higher temperature,
and decreases with lower temperature, thus the water vapour acts as an
amplification factor on *changes* in temperature caused by other
things. In a stable climate, average water vapour content of the
atmosphere will be stable, so is not a significant factor. It's chief
significance therefore is to amplify *change*. Which was my point and
probably why the original programme didn't see any necessity to
mention it.

The role of water vapour, and in particular the role of clouds in
influencing global temperatures, is poorly understood. Is cloud cover
increased by a warmer climate, and if so does that reflect IR
radiation back out of the atmosphere and prevent it reaching the
surface, or does it act as a blanket, holding the heat in?


We know enough to know that both these things happen, but that the
latter is more significant than the former. The run-away greenhouse
effect on Venus tells us that. The planet is about the same size as
Earth, but is closer to the sun, so gets more heat directly from the
sun. Despite the planet being completely covered in cloud, so much
heat enters the atmosphere that all the surface water on the planet
exists only as water vapour in the atmosphere, and in fact the
temperature at the planet's surface is hot enough to melt lead.

It is one of the several weaknesses in the AGW
hypothesis.


Exactly as I thought, there was a political motivation all along.
There is no weakness of any significance.

I didn't see the program, but, given the above, it doesn't sound to me
as though water vapour was necessarily relevant to the point being
made by the programme.


It was only a short clip, but it was unbalanced. The best part was the
gun-cotton igniting.


If it was a short clip, then it's hardly surprising that the role of
water vapour as a complicating amplification factor was omitted.
probably in the interests of clarity. Nothing wrong with that.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #10  
Old September 17th 17, 10:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,698
Default bbc inacuracies

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:26:24 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:38:13 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 17:44:00 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is one of the several weaknesses in the AGW
hypothesis.


There is no weakness of any significance.

In which case, why have the models been predicting global temperatures
significantly higher than those observed in almost the last couple of
decades?


Because they're talking about long-term trends over many decades, and
these are shorter-term decadal variations and cycles which mask those
long-term trends over the shorter-term.

Either the values of some of the parameters used in the
modelling are wrong, because they are difficult to measure precisely,
or there are other parameters that have not been considered or
included, or both.

Climatologists can't even predict the next El Niño


Can you? Don't tell me that it's not your job, because, AIUI, it's
not necessarily theirs, probably too short a timescale to interest
most of them, and certainly so for anything more than passing
relevance to AGW.

let alone explain
why it happens, so it's not too surprising they can't get the global
temperatures right.


They have been getting the temperatures reasonably accurately over the
longer-term.

Why don't you just admit it?! You're just another climate denialist,
peddling the usual pseudo-science that denialists use ...
Obfuscation by the introduction of straw-men such as water-vapour.
Obfuscation by deliberate confusion of timescales.
Sowing of FUD by introduction of weather-related irrelevancies.

Climate models aren't perfect, nobody's pretending they are and those
who create them are always trying to improve them, but they're the
best tool we've got for predicting far into the future, and deliberate
attempts to sabotage their public credibility by sowing politicised
FUD is irresponsible, and if you are really an ex-scientist, which on
your showing here I'm beginning to doubt, you should know better.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.