Subscription Center
An exploration of the vast dig that will soon become New York City's newest subway line
July 23, 2011 | 13
At the time of our visit in April, workers had completed the downtown tunnel (pictured) and were starting work on the uptown tunnel. The yellow tubing brings fresh air from the surface down to the workers....[More]
This "Tag In Tag Out" board, kept at street level by the entrance to the dig, shows who is inside the tunnel at all times. As workers enter the tunnel, they turn their tags from the blue side to the red side....[More]
Some of the equipment used in the dig is shown here. Just behind it, water can be seen seeping through the rock wall, leaving rust-colored stains....[More]
The tracks you see here, emerging from the uptown tunnel, are not subway rails. Those will be laid on an elevated concrete platform. These tracks carry a small train that transports debris from the tunnel boring machine inside this tunnel to the rear of the construction site....[More]
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Handicaps in CAPPS
Full-size Unmanned Aircraft Flies on Hydrogen Fuel
13 Comments
Add CommentTo the SA Editors:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would an elite magazine like SA publish something before it was ready for subscriber viewing,ie; July 2011 edition "Underground Railroad(WEB Exclusive)?
Most disappointing!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would anyone know how much it costs per 100 feet of boring? Also would anyone know the total cost per Km/Mile finished cost (stations, infrastructure, etc), or any idea where I could get these from?.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanjs
MrDrT, I for one am tired of the unreasonable and mean climate denialism you and your ilk impose at every opportunity. Here is an article about NYC subways, and you find it appropriate to object to global warming reporting. Go put your head back in the sand and keep it there for a while.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhoa! I too just happened to check the SA links to see if they had abandoned their religious intensity over man-made global warming. Still waiting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that the pictures offered here are a very disappointing tour however I must address my main comment to MrDrT. I presume that you have been a reader of Scientific American for a significant period of time. I assume also that you generally accept articles in this magazine at face value and that you accept the magazine's editorial position to be valid. Why is it, then, that you cannot accept the magazine's position on global warming and climate change to be valid as well. The vast majority of scientists who study the subject are agreed that significant climate change is under way. The only question is the extent to which human activity is responsible. Have you not noticed the abnormal extreme heat and drought conditions affecting most of the U.S.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomewhat on topic for a change, while I'd love to see more than four photos, these four were quite interesting. As a firefighter, it's very good to see the tag system (very similar to the one we use, by the way.) If it is maintained, it's a great way to know how many people might need to be rescued.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've loved reading Scientific American for many years now and honestly don't understand why some people disagree with any of it at all. It's facts, not fiction. Very readable, and very reliable. I do read the 'Letters to the Editors' every issue and enjoy the feedback from the various article authors. Some of the letters are legitimately intelligent, some not so intelligent. Maybe some people just need to heighten their day to a level below where it may usually lie by venting their frustration. I settle down with the magazine every single night and don't plan to change that routine any time in the future. Nothing beats a good rapid fire cascading of a synapse or two!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's "disappointing"? SA is a magazine first, publish is what they do!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are very few scientist that do not believe that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. There are many scientists that believe that the current global cycle of warming is caused by man made pollution, mainly the release of Carbon dioxide, from hydrocarbons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main problem that I have is that there is no conclusive proof for either hypothesis. For example, scientist have not been unable to predict the current ten year cooling cycle. The steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.
The people against man made global warming also have not been able to say conclusively that the release of trapped earth carbon through the burning of hydrocarbons is not the direct cause of global warming.
Darwin had his many critics, for example, Soren Lovtrup points out that "some critics turned against Darwin's teachings for religious reasons, but most of his opponents ... argued on a completely scientific basis. This is the current argument against the non believers of humans are the main cause of global warming.
The most formidable of Darwin's critics was St. George Mivart. His major book, On the Genesis of Species, took aim at the notion that natural selection could not account for the accumulation of the incipient stages of useful structures. This argument is the one that is being used to dismiss man made global warming, this seems intuitively paradoxical.
However, Louis Agassiz, another critic of Darwin stated that
"Between two successive geological periods, changes have taken place among plants and animals. But none of those primordial forms of life which naturalists call species, are known to have changed during any of these periods. It cannot be denied that the species of different successive periods are supposed by some naturalists to derive their distinguishing features from changes which have taken place in those of preceding ages, but this is a mere supposition, supported neither by physiological nor by geological evidence; and the assumption that animals and plants may change in a similar manner during one and the same manner is equally gratuitous." (Contributions to Natural History: Essay on Classification, p. 51.) This same argument can be used against the scientist who do not believe that man is the main contributing cause of global warming.
I find that any person who follows any dogma with out questioning it is like an ant following a pheromone trail.
The the photo-tour was very vapid.
STOP the PRESSES. Recently published, peer reviewed ,REAL DATA, collected over some 15 years by NASA satellites finds ALL the 'climate models' used to predict the adverse effects of increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 ARE WRONG and VASTLY OVER PREDICT HEAT GAIN!!!! Climate is changing, but CO2 increase is not the reason!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince this has become a global warming response lets go with it then. Lets start with the last post with kebowers47. "STOP the PRESSES. Recently published, peer reviewed ,REAL DATA, collected over some 15 years by NASA satellites finds ALL the 'climate models' used to predict the adverse effects of increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 ARE WRONG and VASTLY OVER PREDICT HEAT GAIN!!!! Climate is changing, but CO2 increase is not the reason!!!!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd where is this "recently published, peer reviewed, real data"? Lets see the NASA website. Because without that documentation you have nothing. James Hansen has been very involved with NASA and global warming research for years. He understands as well as anyone what the burning of fossils fuels is doing to the CO2 levels and hence the climate. I have heard nothing like what you describe from him and don't expect to.
So lets see your evidence or show some dignity and stop posting on this site on this subject.
Aeolus, I would suggest that you try a variety of sites all of which support the science on global warming including; Science News, Science, The Economist and Discover just to name a few. And how about this one SKEPTIC magazine!! If they can support global warming that gives the theory a lot more credibility then any of the alternatives.
It seems Bodhi37 believes he is the only arbiter of climate change information. A simple Google search will quickly find MANY links to the press release issued by Univ of Alabama AND the technical paper just published.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf" is a link to the paper, which IS rather technical and most likely beyond comprehension by jerks like Bodhi37.
Do YOUR home work before making rude and totally incorrect assumptions.
Me--I want DATA that has been carefully verified and vetted and presented as INFORMATION.
'Models' are inherently much more likely to have imbedded in them basic 'assumptions' that are not 'visible' to unskilled, uneducated rank and file people who blindly believe whatever computer spit out. Mathematical models are useful in many areas and scientific fields. However, the earth's climate 'system' is of much greater complexity and chaos than is possible to mathematically simulate --UNLESS--many simplifying ASSUMPTIONS are used.
In this particular subject--how much heat/energy is re-radiated out of the Earth's atmosphere--was simply greatly under-estimated in the building of the many climate models.
The climate is changing and there is no reasonable doubt of that. Why and to what in what time frame is the 'holy grail', but alas, we know so little and are so arrogant sounding when bold statements about forecasting the future of earth's climate.
Go and look at the few data points collected on earths climate history and on which all the models base the forecasts. Look at each data point, judge just how precise and accurate the measurements are (or rather the possible/probable errors inherent in such tenuous extrapolations.) It is FAR from conclusive that CO2 is forcing or influencing climate change.
Would you all go tomorrow in your jobs using a car, aren't you...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this