Nature documentaries can't be trusted

By -
I have been watching "India: natures wonderland."

In today's segment, some annoying mountain dude has been banging on about the Himalayas. Well, at least the mountain scenery has been pleasant.

But then he brought me to a halt: the Himalayas are growing, he noted. (True.) "It's only a few inches a year, but it has been going on for millions of years."

This made my inner engineer get out my calculator. How many is "a few"? Let's say three. And how many "millions of years"? He had mentioned that the Himalayas or 40 million years old a bit earlier… Let's say half that time, just to see where we get.

3 * 20,000,000 = 60,000,000 inches of growth

60,000,000 / 12 inches per foot = 5,000,000 feet of growth

So, the average mountain in the Himalayas is around 5 million feet tall. No wonder people need to carry oxygen when going up Everest!

Apparently the Himalayas are currently growing at a rate of 2 to 3 inches per year. But obviously, that rate hasn't been kept up for even 1 million years, let alone "millions."

Comments

  1. Ken B2:46 PM

    It's not just nature documentaries. It's everything from reporters. This is a point Michael Crichton made well. Whenever I see a report or article on something I know well the reporter gets it wrong. Sometimes small errors, sometimes a complete mess. But wrong. I bet you have a similar experience. Everyone does. So one,s experience with reporting on topics one knows about teaches one reporting is suspect and not very reliable. But do people generalize this? Most seem not to. "You turn the page, you forget what you know."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andy8:21 PM

    Average rate: nearly 0.01 ft/yr (based on your numbers.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andy8:22 PM

    ...oops, 0.01 inches/year.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ken B10:10 PM

    There's a book about such errors by Paulos, Innumeracy. It's a good book; he lambastes people who don't even try to get the order of magnitude right. After the 2000 election he wrote a piece lamenting Bush's win, and "estimating" the margin of victory. He was off in his calculations, using his data and definitions, by a factor of 3,000,000. I wrote him. He replied "so what? I was making a point."
    I didn't read his later books.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more