The Straight Dope 11/26/2004

The Straight Dope -- By Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com

You are subscribed as: [[email protected]]

To unsubscribe CLICK on the URL below this line:
mailto:[email protected]
If you can't "click" above, then send a blank email to:
[email protected]
____________________________________________
THE STRAIGHT DOPE 11/26/2004

Dear Cecil:

Is the grass always greener on the other side of the fence? --Gigi
Reece, Chicago

~~~~~~
Looking for the perfect gift for that wedding, birthday, or
bar mitzvah? Straight Dope books are the very thing! See
http://www.straightdope.com/store.html
~~~~~~

Cecil replies:

Yes. You ask how I know this. (1) Personal observation. Not to bore you
with details of my personal life, but grass has always been a problem
for me. (2) Scholarly corroboration--specifically, a journal article
entitled "The Grass Is Always Greener: An Ecological Analysis of an Old
Aphorism" by James R. Pomerantz, Perception, 1983. Professor Pomerantz's
explanation, I may as well tell you, isn't the model of scientific rigor
some might prefer. First, it has about as much to do with ecology as
Radio Flyers have to do with radio. Second, the author persists in
referring to the "grass is always greener" phenomenon as the "GAG
effect," leading you to suspect that the project wasn't pursued with 100
percent seriousness. However, in my business you work with what you've
got.

First let's clear up the ecological angle. 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041126.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC #1  08/08/1986

Dear Cecil:

When the weather service predicts some percentage chance of rain for the
next day, what does this number mean? I always figured they compiled
certain parameters about current conditions and compared them to
analogous days in the past. The percentage of those days in which it
rained is then used as the predicted chance of rain now. In other words,
they base the percentages on historical data. However, a friend who is a
pilot (and who presumably should know about these things) claims that
the figure is determined by looking at the current conditions of a storm
system which is expected to pass over us. The number represents the
percentage of the area the storm is now passing over in which it is
actually raining. This strikes me as complete bullshit.

Anyway, what's the straight dope on the predicted chance of rain? How
can you ever have 100 percent chance of rain? How reliable are these
figures? --Ted F., Chicago

Cecil replies:

You are one shrewd hombre, Ted, no doubt as a result of having been
exposed to this column regularly during your formative years. Your guess
about what the percentages mean is pretty much on the money.

Here's what happens. The National Weather Service (and various other
weather services around the world, under the guidance of the World
Meteorological Organization, a UN agency) sends up measuring devices
called radiosondes in helium balloons twice a day. These collect weather
data continuously as they rise through the atmosphere--wind speed and
direction, temperature, barometric pressure, and humidity. The
information is radioed to the ground and eventually ends up at the
National Meteorological Center near Washington, D.C., where it's fed
into a computer. (There are other centers in other parts of the world
that do the same thing.) Other data from satellites and ground reporting
stations are also fed in, and what you end up with, metaphorically
speaking, is a complete three-dimensional picture of atmospheric
conditions around the world. The computer program then applies various
laws of fluid mechanics to predict future conditions.

For more, see: 
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_115b.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC #2  01/03/1986

Dear Cecil: 

I'm surprised to have (almost) caught you in an error, viz., your recent
discussion of Christ, whom you described as having been "flayed." By
extension, "flayed" might mean the same thing as "flogged" (which is
what I think you mean), but seems to me it just means "skinned," more or
less. We devotees have a duty to keep you on your august toes, Cece. Now
for a question. What's the straight dope on the story that J.J. Audubon,
the famous naturalist, was really the dauphin who would have become
Louis XVII if he hadn't taken up watercolors and stuff? Is there a
scholarly basis for this tale? Keep up the good work. -- Robert Beers,
New York City

Cecil replies:

You're a schmuck, Beers, but at least you're a respectful schmuck. One
learns to count one's blessings these days. I used "flayed" to mean
"flogged to the point where the victim's skin hangs in tatters." No
doubt this is an exaggeration, but let's face it, exaggeration is not
exactly unknown in this column. Anyway, the usage is sanctioned by the
Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage.

Now, where were we ... right, the dauphin. 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_121.html

____________________________________________
Here's how you can get your OWN FREE Subscription:
Send a blank mailto:[email protected]
____________________________________________
Copyright 1995 - 2004 Chicago Reader, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
You may forward this document by email ONLY if you
include the entire document INCLUDING the information
at the bottom of this publication
____________________________________________
Visit our good friends at Joke A Day http://www.jokeaday.com
They're kind enough to mail THE STRAIGHT DOPE for us.
Join the World's Largest Daily Humor List and receive daily
laughs in your email by sending mailto:[email protected]