In Terra Veritas

I liked his books...

2011-03-25T10:44:00.010-06:00

A few days ago, I heard that Simon Winchester (he of "The Map that Changed the World", "Krakatoa", and "Crack in the Edge of the Word" fame) had published an editorial in Newsweek regarding the recent Japan Earthquake. The tweet that brought it to my attention was not the most glowing review of an editorial I have ever seen, so I was curious about what Winchester was saying.

At the end, I was not overly impressed. The primary thesis of Winchester's editorial deals with earthquake clustering. Earthquake clustering is the concept that a large earthquake associated with one tectonic plate will cause other large earthquakes on the same plate (or elsewhere on the planet). However, he provides no data to back up this assertion. He only uses cherry-picked anecdotal evidence (which is not data, it may be the start of a hypothesis, but it isn't data). With nothing else to support his argument, it is just unconvincing.

If that is all the essay said, that would be fine. However, Winchester uses this concept to argue that this means there will be an earthquake along the West Coast of North America in the very near future. This is just sensationalism, and it has been covered thoroughly by several other geoblogs (notably Highly Allocthonous and Geotripper) and CNN. I recommend looking through them, since I won't be going into much analysis about this.

Last night, Winchester responded to his critics. The Daily Beast article is rather weak in my opinion. It just presents more cherry picked anecdotes and then claims it is obvious to everybody except for geophysicists (and I'd assume geologists too). However, this is a foolish argument to make. Science is not necessarily intuitive.

If science was always intuitive, Aristotle and Plato would still be the top dogs as far as understanding the natural world go. Heavy objects will fall proportionally faster than light objects. There would only be four elements (Earth, Wind, Fire, Water) and a fifth "essence" making up the celestial spheres (the origin of the word "quintessential"). The Earth would also be the center of the universe and the continents would not be moving about the planet.

These were all blatantly obvious to the majority of our population, but when people actually started to collect evidence, it was realized that a counter intuitive explanation is what made sense in light of the data collected. This is why scientists go to great lengths to collect data and build massive datasets to demonstrate the validity of a hypothesis.

He also justifies his argument by saying "All that can be said with certainty is that they are more likely to break tomorrow than yesterday". This justification is meaningless as it is true of any natural phenomenon given enough time. With the same confidence as Winchester is displaying with regards to earthquake prediction, I can claim that a giant asteroid is going to collide with Earth. I wish I could take credit for this concept, but it was already advocated by Hsu and his paper "Catastrophic Extinctions and the Inevitability of the Improbable (1989)" (a brilliant, must-read paper).

I will conclude by saying one thing that has bothered me about this from the start. Where is the data to support this? That is an easy one. There are large stores of data available to individuals who wish to study earthquakes. Hell you can follow earthquakes as they happen via twitter (@quakenotices) and practically any mobile device these days. More to the point, it is all aggregated within the USGS and freely available to the public. So why did Winchester not provide any data supporting his point?

We have amassed plenty of data, all of it begging to be analyzed. There is no reason to think that Winchester is wrong advocating earthquake clustering (unless somebody has done the analysis and I just don't know about it). However, without the data to back up his hypothesis, he is not going to convince anybody within the scientific community.

I still like his books, but this is just sloppy thinking. Even worse, it is irresponsible.

---
Works Cited
Hsu, K. J., 1989, Catastrophic Extinctions and the Inevitability of the Improbable: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 146, no. 5, p. 749-754.

---

Edit: Even Better, just read this note on Facebook by Dr. Rowe which is the emails sent back and forth between herself and Simon Winchester regarding his articles. It is very good stuff. She also clarified a few things I had questions about myself (most notably, hadn't this already been thought of?). Thanks to Callan and Brian for tweeting this.

Happy Darwin Day!!!

2011-02-12T00:00:00.002-07:00

It is that time again. This clip from Dana Carvey crossing "Sherlock Holmes (2009)" with "Creation (2009)" has been floating around the internet for a bit. I found it funny. After showing it to my museum's director, you can now catch us reciting some of the more memorable lines from the clip at each other. Enjoy!!!

Also, there is a resolution in the House of Representatives concerning acknowledging Darwin Day (H.R. 81). The Center for Inquiry has a petition and a form letter you can send to your representative advocating support for the resolution (which you are encouraged to personalize for added significance to your congressional district). And GovTrack.us shows the status of all legislation currently under consideration by congress, including H.R. 81.

There's an App for That

2011-01-12T17:21:00.012-07:00

In keeping with my one post a month schedule for the blog, I decided that what better thing to talk about in January than applications for a geologist's new iPhone or iPad. Assuming you got one over the holiday season.

There have been a couple of pretty nifty applications that have an Earth Science theme to them. Below are some of the ones that I have had an opportunity to play around with myself.

The first is called "iSeismo" (yes the little "i" is becoming disturbingly common these days). iSeismo turns your iPhone, iPod, or iPad into a makeshift seismometer (as the name would imply). Here are some screen shots of the application I took while messing around with the software:

just a couple of wobbles from pressing the buttons to take a screen shot, but if I bump the table it is resting on... well the result is rather predictable:

If you're curious about what the three lines represent, they each measure the acceleration along one of the devices axes. Diagrammed below:

The best part about this application is it is free to download. So go ahead, shake the hell out of your device... for science!

The next application was all the rage at the last GSA meeting in Denver. Several members of the British Geological Survey announced the release of another free geology application called iGeology.

I imagine I would have more fun with this application if I lived in the UK, but I still downloaded it and play with it. What I really like about this application is that it highlights the geology of wherever I happen to be (provided I happen to be in the UK). However, it also lets me do a search for any location I want to look at.

For example I do a basic search for "Siccar Point" and it takes me to the scottish border.

What if you don't know much about the color codes on the map? No worries, just tap on the screen and a little information window pops open. If you want additional information, just tap on the blue arrow.

You can also tap "further detail" to send you to the BGS website where you can order geologic maps or additional information. Like I said, I would use this more if it wasn't only about the UK, but I still like the application. I can't fault the British Geological Survey for focusing on their own turf after all.

But what if I really wanted to look into getting an application that is relevant to the location where I live. We can't all be fortunate enough to have the BGS as our national survey after all. Well you might be interested in learning about an application called "Earth ~~Observatory~~ Observer" (look no "i" at all!).

While it doesn't have the ability to use your present location to display information on the local geology (a feature I really like in iGeology), you can run around the entire planet. Just tap the little blue arrow in the lower right corner.

There is a wide variety of different types of maps you can load on top of the basemap, including arctic and antarctic specific maps. But since I am talking about the Geology, lets load the Worldwide Geology map.

Look at that nice image of sea-floor spreading and subduction. However, you can only view so much geology at a 1:50,000,000 scale map. No worries. You can load up more detailed maps for various regions. Here is a zoom in on the US (left is the world map, middle is the US Age and Formation map, and the rightis the US rock type map).

All in all, it is pretty nifty. It's also free!

However, interactive geologic maps are only one of the things that has been turned into an app. Wouldn't it be nice to have a handy-dandy resource concisely summarizing vast swaths of literature regarding climate change? There is yet another FREE application for that as well. I vaguely remember talking about Skeptical Science at one point, but that was before I could download the application. Fortunately, their website offers a complete list of the arguments and the science.

The setup for this application is a list of common claims made by climate change deniers (they use the term "skeptic" when they mean denier, but that doesn't really detract from the value of this software). You just tap on the claim listed in the application and the application summarizes both the denier's claim, the scientific standing, and a detailed explanation about the science. For example I just tapped the "It's not happening" heading and the "2009-2010 saw record cold spells" claim (below are a series of screen shots that should stitch together):

This is a phenomenal app that is bound to make denialists squirm. And to reiterate, it is free! Plus, unlike the geologic map apps, you don't need access to the internet while using it. It only requires periodic connections to update the database, but other than that, you can browse it wherever you happen to be.

One final application that I have seen out there turns your iPhone or iPad into a Brunton compass. I know what name you are thinking of, but somehow the developers resisted the urge to name it "iBrunton" or "iCompass". There are two versions available. One is called Lambert, the other is called GeolCompass. I can't say much about either at this time, because I haven't downloaded them (though it looks like Lambert lets you make stereonets on your device). Mainly I have put off downloading them because I can't think of a worse thing to do to my iPad than drag it into the field with me (or my iPhone if I had one). Maybe one day, but not right now.

Hell, I wouldn't even drag my old decrepit laptop into the field, and it was held together by duct tape and good intentions. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind technology in the field (My digital camera is a regular piece of equipment that I bring and I use a GPS device more regularly these days).

I just don't want to spend ~$400 on a device that might not work properly if I drop it in the field (or it gets dust into its case, or it gets wet), especially when other options are available that work just as well. That said, a decent Brunton Transit will run a couple hundred bucks as well, but you can drop it, get it wet, etc, and it will still work. Same for the durability of my field book and pencil.

Technological preferences aside, I highly recommend every geologist with a device that works with the apple app store download the free software:

-iSeismo

-iGeology (even if you aren't in the UK. It might encourage other surveys to follow suit)

-Earth Observatory

-Skeptical Science

They are all phenomenal.

Something Ate the Moon

2010-12-21T13:45:00.005-07:00

Last night North America had the king seats for a total lunar eclipse. These astronomical phenomena hold a special place in the history of science as a whole. In ancient Greece, Aristarchus was observing a lunar eclipse when he realized that as the shadow crept across the face of the moon, it was in the shape of an arc, not a straight line. He then posited that this meant that the Earth itself was curved (since the Earth is what must be casting the shadow). Furthermore, this observation helped Aristarchus come to the realization that the Earth is not the center of our solar system, but rather the Earth must orbit the Sun. All this was discovered centuries before Copernicus and Galileo. The ancient Greeks were even able to estimate for the relative sizes and distances of the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun. While we are much more precise with our modern techniques, Aristarchus was on the right path.

With that said, last night I went out and took some pictures of the lunar eclipse. These aren't the greatest of pictures since my SLR and telescope are packed away right now and all I had available was my camera I use for basic photography in the field. However, you will clearly be able to see the curvature of the Earth as the shadow moves over the surface of the moon. [note: I just realized that you cannot enlarge the photos by clicking on them. I will see if I can remedy this. Apparently, Blogger shrunk them all down to 400x300. I will probably just have to break down and subscribe to a photo hosting site to fix this]

Below is a shot of the eclipse just as it was starting.

Below it has progressed a little bit further.

And below shows it further still

Around about this time, I wasn't getting the eclipsed portion of the moon very clearly so I toyed around with the shutter speed and got the image below. Both the image above and below are at about the same point during the eclipse. The lower picture shows the eclipsed poritions of the moon and washes out the little sliver yet to be eclipsed.

Below shows the eclipse in near totality.

And here was the last decent shot I got of the event last night.

Back From Hiatus

2010-12-08T15:01:00.001-07:00

I have been away for a while… a good LONG while. However, I am still going to try and keep this blog running. Truth is, I like this blog. I find it is a good way for me to express my ideas about various topics that interest me and get feedback on those selfsame topics. I also find it good practice to keep writing about technical concepts in a less than technical manner. Or, to paraphrase Albert Einstein (who was paraphrasing Ernest Rutherford), you don't truly understand your [sed/strat] unless you can explain it to your [friends in a bar].

That said, sometimes the real world just gets too busy for me to make regular updates to ITV, let alone pay attention to it at all. I had some grand plans for when I finished my thesis such as: move over to Wordpress, start semi-weekly updates, break down the infernal tome of archaic knowledge over a series of posts, etc. What I didn't expect was how complex my schedule could become. I had to move, find work (of a sort), research PhD programs, attend conferences (which included helping prepare presentations for conferences), write applications to graduate programs, retake the GRE (prior scores expired. Good news, both scores went up [still waiting on the essay score]), and work on condensing my Masters into a journal article for submission (got a rough draft done, but it isn't ready for "showtime" yet)…. And my schedule doesn't look like it will be easing up anytime soon with campus visits, grant writing, helping to get a lecture series organized and developing a "training manual" about local sed/strat for docents at the museum I am currently working with. I have developed a greater respect for all the geobloggers out there who have been able to balance the real world and blogging.

So, with that in mind, I have decided to set more realistic expectations of what I hope to accomplish regarding ITV. I will no longer be moving from blogger (it's got problems, but I can endure them for the time being). Semi-weekly updates might be a bit optimistic. I will try and post monthly updates at the very least. I am also scrapping the idea of talking about my thesis, since I am trying to get it into a journal. Once it's in a journal, I probably will just let someone else in the geoblogosphere eviscerate it.

With that said, I am currently working on December's update. Watch this space.

Our Achilles Heel Has Been Exposed

2010-07-28T14:53:00.003-06:00

I was just perusing Facebook, and one of my friends posted this story. Apparently insurgents have figured out the quickest way to get a geologist to ingest poison is to place it in the guise of beer. Truly, a more fiendish plot has never been devised.

However, love of beer (and knowledge of geology) also happened to save the targeted geologist:

The Corona bottle sat on his counter for the next two weeks Yeager [the targeted geologist] says, because Corona is one of his least favorite beers. He finally opened it during a going away party as the other drinks began to run low.

“I pulled it out and when I popped it there was no fizz and the cap was loose,” says Yeager. “Because this one didn’t have fizz you wonder if it went rancid or not, and I just kind of sniffed it and I went ‘Oh, that doesn’t smell like beer.’ ”

Yeager, a geochemist familiar with acids, realized it smelled like sulfuric acid – otherwise known as battery acid. He called a friend over who had the same reaction to the smell. Yeager poured the “beer” into the toilet and it foamed and fizzed, leaving “no question” in his mind it was sulfuric acid.

Geology saving lives once again.

Of Boycotts and Impact Factors

2010-06-19T20:17:00.004-06:00

Well it has been a while since I visited this corner of the internet. I am also WAYYYY behind in my blog reading (so, by now, this may be old news to people). I suppose that is what happens when the real world imposes itself. So to get back into the swing of things, here is a quick summation of a relatively minor story with potentially significant implications.

The Nature Publishing Group (NPG) is planning to raise the cost of subscription for the University of California Library System (UCL). NPG's argument is that UCL's subscription is currently being subsidized by other universities. So NPG wants to raise UCL's subscription fee to be more in line with what other universities are paying (though as Larry Moran notes, NPG has yet to mention that they will lower the subscription costs for these other universities).

More to the point, this change will effectively raise UCL's subscription fee 400%. Simply put, with the financial woes of the UC system, UCL might be unable to fit this into the budget. In response, UC professors have proposed a boycott of NPG. Not only will they stop the subscription (which may be unavoidable in any situation), they will no longer serve as peer-review, and they will no longer submit articles.

This is potentially a large problem, not just for NPG but for any research publication that is for-profit. Primarily because the consumers of research journals also supply the content of research journals. To put this in perspective, people talk about the power that the Baseball Players Union has when negotiating with the team owners. Imagine how much power the Baseball Players Union would have if they not only supplied the product (i.e. played the game), but were also the predominant consumers (i.e. they were the largest, or only, group purchasing tickets and attending/watching games). This analogous to the situation with researchers and research publications. That is the amount of leverage researchers have when dealing with scientific journals. It should be interesting to see how this situation develops in the coming weeks.

While this is an interesting story in its own right, the principle organizer of this boycott made an interesting statement justifying the lack of article submission (via Sandwalk):

In many ways it doesn't matter where the work's published, because scientists will be able to find it

If this is indeed the case (which given inter-library loan and the predominance of digital copies of papers, it is), this should have an interesting effect on the concept of evaluating the impact factor of journals. I have no idea whether this will make the concept of an impact factor obsolete, or whether it just grants journals that have cheaper (or free) access to online papers higher impact factors.

I don't know what to do now

2010-05-14T11:10:00.002-06:00

*Phew*. You may have noticed it's been rather quiet here on In Terra Veritas recently. Only a few quick posts linking to TED talks that I liked. There's good reason for this. I've just willed into existence another Damnable Tome of Archaic Knowledge.

I've turned in the final version of my Masters Thesis to all parties that require an electronic copy, filled out all the paper work, cleared out my office, and now.... I have no clue what to do next. It's a good feeling though.

"Amazing" TED Talk

2010-04-21T14:02:00.003-06:00

I saw this through the JREF page on Facebook. James “The Amazing” Randi talks about psychics and homeopathy. It is a quick introduction to why psychics are frauds and homeopathy is a waste of money.

I like what Randi is saying, but I wish he would be more clear in his presentation. Don’t get me wrong, it was a fine talk, but it felt rather scattered. I highly recommend people visit his website to learn more about what the JREF is all about.

Fear of Science will Kill Us

2010-04-14T13:40:00.005-06:00

Just a quick post. This has been going around on Facebook, probably on the blogosphere as well, but I wanted to add it to this blog as well.

Last year Michael Specter wrote a very good book about the growing trend of denialism in this country. I don't know when the paperback version is due to be released (or if it already has), but I recommend reading it. Recently, Michael gave a TED talk on the same subject (available through CNN). The video, and an accompanying article, is also available here.

Two Steps Closer Toward Becoming a Misnomer

2010-04-07T14:44:00.006-06:00

Just a quick post since I am working on my final revisions. I logged onto my reader today to try and clear out some of the stories. It is a losing battle. I can't seem to read all the stories I would like to these days. But this Headline caught my attention:

"Glacier National Park Loses Two More Glaciers"

This was the most depressing quote in this brief article:

Warmer temperatures have reduced the number of named glaciers in the northwestern Montana park to 25, said Dan Fagre, an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey. He warned the rest of the glaciers may be gone by the end of the decade.

I would suggest making plans to visit the park sooner rather than later. I also have some posts from when I visited the park a couple summers ago.

Capsize Tectonics Theory

2010-04-01T12:13:00.004-06:00

I really hope that Hank Johnson releases a press statement that says "April Fools", but I don't think that will happen. The real "gem" comes after Rep. Hank Johnson (D. GA) is done talking about the approximate dimensions of Guam. If you can make it to the 1:30 mark, get ready for a grand example of Epic Fail.

Also, that Admiral deserves a cookie. I don't know how he could calmly state "We don't anticipate that". I would have been yelling about how stupid the Rep. from Georgia is. Then again, maybe the Admiral doesn't deserve a cookie if you feel the respectful insolence approach is the correct way to go in this situation.

Ooh Neat.

2010-03-06T17:17:00.004-07:00

So I just got this email forwarded to me:

Dear colleagues,

WITH APOLOGIES FOR CROSS-POSTING

Following the earthquake in Chile at the end of February the Geological Society of London has made available a range of papers on the Lyell Collection covering the tectonics of the region. See:

Chilean tectonics: February earthquake open access collection:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/publications/lyellcollection/page7188.html

These papers will remain open access until the end of April 2010.

Please share information widely with colleagues, and do let me know if you have any queries.

There are some pretty cool papers over there, including 9 papers written by Charles Darwin from his voyage on the Beagle. They also have papers available for the Haiti quake. So go, read, and enjoy learning about geology.

41 'Angry' Scientists*

2010-03-05T12:48:00.008-07:00

Yesterday was a good day. I turned in the final draft of my thesis before my defense, I went to the local bar with some friends, and I generally had a pleasant evening reading popular fiction. Then I checked my email around 10:30 pm. My advisor sent me an article pertaining to my general research area. He is underwhelmed and said the article was "hot" off the presses. My mood was deflated and, reading the author list, I thought this group admitting uncertainty about the bolide impact extinction hypothesis was less likely than meeting a fundamentalist Christian who views the Bible as allegorical.

Perhaps you've seen the headlines. It's Official... according to Yahoo! Experts Reaffirm.... according to Eureka Alert. And Scientists Settle.... according to the LA Times.

It's nice to know the media is still capable of framing a non-story in contentious terms. The article that started this recent round of hullabaloo is here (Science requires a subscription, but I'd be surprised if your local library/university didn't subscribe. Or you might be able to pick up the article at a newsstand).

My take on this article is along the same lines as my advisor. There is nothing new in this article. Nothing that warranted its publication. It is billed as an impartial assessment of the facts as they stand. However, it is little more than a restatement of Alvarez et al., 1980. And, like the prior study, it makes the same mistake of overreaching the dataset. I concede that this paper demonstrates that a bolide impacted the Earth at approximately the KPg boundary, but this was established in the Alvarez study. I further concede a likely crater for this event is Chicxulub, but this was established by Hildebrand et al., 1991. These are the paper's strengths, but I don't understand why it takes 41 authors 4.5 pages to retread old ground.

You read that right. FORTY-ONE authors. One more author and they would have achieved the Adams Quotient of Verisimilitude. The only reason I can see why this paper, that says nothing new, had 41 authors would be to attempt to give the impression of a false consensus (I have no proof that is what they were doing, but that is the impression it gave me). If this is true, this paper boils down to nothing more than an argument of authority.

This paper fails in the exact same way that Alvarez et al., 1980 fails. It does a brilliant job of demonstrating that a bolide impacted the Earth around the same time as the end Cretaceous extinction event. However, it never establishes causation. Correlation does NOT equate to causation. In fact, you could not ask for a better example of this fallacy than the first sentence of their conclusion:

The correlation between impact-derived ejecta and paleontologically defined extinctions at multiple locations around the globe leads us to conclude that the Chicxulub impact triggered the mass extinction that marks the boundary between the Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras ~65.5 million years ago.

Now, I don't want to give the impression that just because I criticized this article I must be against the bolide impact extinction hypothesis. This is not the case. I don't think we have sufficient data to draw ANY conclusions regarding the causal mechanisms of ANY extinction event. Furthermore, I don't think we have a sufficient data set to even determine the RATE of ANY extinction event.

While it is good to have a skeptical eye when examining science, it is important to not become a denialist. One technique I have found that helps me walk the line between healthy skepticism and outright denial is list what evidence it would take to convince you of the contrary. If that evidence is reasonable for the situation, it is likely you are just expressing skepticism rather than denial. So in that spirit, here is the evidence/advances that I want before I am willing to begin to draw conclusions regarding causal mechanisms in an extinction event:

1) Standardization of the terms "Catastrophic" and "Gradual". It seems like a little thing, but nobody has adequately defined these terms in this context. For example, ask yourself if "Catastrophic" refers to a rate (if a rate, where is the cutoff? Is this cutoff based on anything or is it arbitrary?) or does it refer to a magnitude (same questions, where is the cutoff and what is the cutoff based on?)? I've seen both usages in the literature. This is actually one of the side projects I have been working on. But if someone beats me to it, all the more power to them.

2) We are able to surmount the Signor-Lipps effect. This is the biggest obstacle to overcome in extinction studies. Sadly, I have seen very few studies that turn the Signor-Lipps effect inward to examine itself. Though there are some, and I remember writing about one. They make for good reads too.

3) We are able to distinguish between an extirpation event and an extinction event. Did the taxa really die out where we find the highest in situ fossil? Or did the taxa just shift their geographical extent, and settle down in an environment that isn't conducive to preservation?

That should be a good start. I can see it taking an entire career to fully address these three issues.

One more thing before I finish this post. When I was an undergrad, in my sedimentary basin analysis class, several of us had "goofy" answers when we didn't know the answer to a question our Prof. asked us. Mine was about "arboreal deposition", I liked the idea of sand suspended in trees. Anyway, a friend of mine was a fan of Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and his response when he didn't know the answer was to state "Meteors Did It!". In that spirit, I photoshopped a "propaganda" poster for the bolide impact hypothesis. Enjoy!

*: an homage to "12 Angry Men". I have no way of knowing the disposition of the scientists who wrote the article in Science.

Works Cited:

Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., and Michel, H. V., 1980, Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous Tertiary extinction: Science, v. 208, no. 4448, p. 1095-1108.

Hildebrand, A. R., Penfield, G. T., Kring, D. A., Pilkington, M., Camargo Zanoguera, A., Jacobsen, S. B., and Boynton, W. V., 1991, Chicxulub Crater; a possible Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico: Geology, v. 19, no. 9, p. 867-871.

Signor, P. W., and Lipps, J. H., 1982, Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns, and catastrophes in the fossil record, Geological Implications of Impacts of Large Asteroids and Comets on the Earth: Special Paper - Geological Society of America, p. 291-296.

Schulte, P., Alegret, L., Arenillas, I., Arz, J., Barton, P., Bown, P., Bralower, T., Christeson, G., Claeys, P., Cockell, C., Collins, G., Deutsch, A., Goldin, T., Goto, K., Grajales-Nishimura, J., Grieve, R., Gulick, S., Johnson, K., Kiessling, W., Koeberl, C., Kring, D., MacLeod, K., Matsui, T., Melosh, J., Montanari, A., Morgan, J., Neal, C., Nichols, D., Norris, R., Pierazzo, E., Ravizza, G., Rebolledo-Vieyra, M., Reimold, W., Robin, E., Salge, T., Speijer, R., Sweet, A., Urrutia-Fucugauchi, J., Vajda, V., Whalen, M., & Willumsen, P. (2010). The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary Science, 327 (5970), 1214-1218 DOI: 10.1126/science.1177265

Wow, I really don't know what to say.

2010-03-01T16:06:00.006-07:00

Edit: I think I figured out which post has earned me the nomination: Un-Natural Disasters. I figured I would post a quick link to the article to make it easier to find. My other Research Blogging posts are: Permo-Triassic Boundary NOT the Event of the Season and Martian Fans. Both were fun articles to write, I hope you enjoy them too.

___________________________________________________________________

So I heard that BrianR of Clastic Detritus was nominated for best research blogging tweeter (Awesome, and congrats BrianR). I was curious about the geoblogging representation and I found a rather pleasant surprise:

I've been nominated (and made it as a finalist apparently) for best blog in the Conservation and Geosciences category. Huzzah! I doubt that I will win, my vote would be either Highly Allochthonous or Dave's landslide Blog, but I am flattered by the nomination. On a side note; Any engineers, mathematicians, or computer scientists out there could take the best research blog in your category easily.

Science Scouts

2010-02-23T16:41:00.002-07:00

This has been going around the internet. Science Scouts. I know some bloggers have already found this, as they have left comments under certain badges. I decided to post this for two reasons. First, I didn't want to forget about this site, as it looks like they update the badges every once in a while and I find them funny. Second, I needed a break so I quickly photoshopped together the badges whose requirements I've fulfilled. The background sash color is the color universities use to recognize colleges of science (golden-rod means 'science' I suppose).

There are some odd loop-holes though. For example, I have shocked myself (unintentionally... I got too near an electric fence that was "off" according to the land-owners anyway) so that warrants the "experienced with electrical shock" level III badge, but I haven't accomplished levels I or II.

So visit the site, read through the comments, have a chuckle. My current favorite comment is Lyndsey's in reference to the "has done science whilst under the influence" badge.

Happy Darwin Day

2010-02-12T05:22:00.001-07:00

Time flies. Why, I feel like it's only been a year since we last celebrated Charles Darwin's Birthday [/bad joke]. Anyway, I don't have much for this year except for a comic I found somewhere online (can't remember where off the top of my head).

Oh, it might have been from Facebook. If anybody hasn't joined the group "I Bet We Can Find 1,000,000 People Who DO Believe in Evolution Before June", today might be a good day. And yes, there has been ample comment on the use of the word 'Believe'. I'm willing to let it slide and mentally swap 'Believe' with 'Accept'.

Irony, thy name is Stein

2010-02-11T17:17:00.001-07:00

I was perusing through Hulu the other evening, when I came upon that most dreaded and detestable of genres.... Reality™ Show (which bears no semblance to reality). This one was called America's Most Smartest Model (ugh, the grammar is "humorous", that means quality right?).

Anyway, I found a science based episode. I find it very schadenfreudelicious to read through students answers that are unintentionally funny. I figured what could be better than watching people fumble over basic scientific concepts on TV? So I clicked watch.

I didn't make it to the first commercial break. Far too painful.

However, all was not lost. I did come across a very delectable bit of irony. Ben Stein is one of the judges (why? I don't know?). Furthermore, Ben Stein explains the concept of science. An added bonus is some of the contestants expression towards the word "science". The video is 25 seconds long, and is rated TV-MA probably because the clip is Ben Stein talking and only mature audiences can withstand his "Drone of Ignorance"...

Nicely, stated Ben. However, didn't you summarize science somewhat differently in another forum? If only there was some way to look for a video clip...

The above is an excerpt from an interview of Ben Stein advertising his *ahem* "documentary" expelled. Oh well, at least Stein was able to find a suitably embarrassing position as judge to the only people on the planet who he might be smarter than...

As Stein said: "If [they] can't do [science], it will raise serious questions about their intellectual capabilities". So, by Ben's own standards, he must have serious reservations about his own 'intellectual capabilities'. Now I'll let him continue his decline to intellectual impotence unimpeded.

For a more thorough deconstruction of Stein, might I recommend part 24 of Thunderf00t's ongoing series "Why do people laugh at Creationists" (highly recommended viewing).

Faith-"Healing" Kills

2010-02-03T16:48:00.001-07:00

I am appalled by this. This morning, NPR reported on a family in Oregon who lost their 16 year old son to renal failure. What appalls me, is the family DID NOTHING to prevent the loss of their son. They belong to a church group that practices faith-"healing", which spurns modern scientifically-based medicine in favor of praying.

Let me say this again. The family LET their 16 year old son die.... of RENAL FAILURE. Kidney problems can be VERY painful. Their son's kidney failure was brought on by a urinary tract blockage that resulted from a minor birth defect. This sort of birth defect would have been detected when he was still an infant (if his family ever took him to a doctor). From there, the family could have been on the lookout for warning signs, and this whole tragedy could have been avoided. Science-based medicine is good about these things. Prayer is not.

What's worse is the family had a track record for ignoring science and letting family members succumb to preventable illness:

The teenager died of complications from a congenital urinary tract blockage that doctors testified could have been treated up until the day he died.

The Beagleys' 15-month-old granddaughter, Ava Worthington, died in March 2008 of pneumonia and a blood infection that also could have been treated.
Instead, Neil and Ava were anointed with oil while the family prayed and laid on hands.

The defense attorney had an interesting note.

But one of the defense attorneys, Wayne Mackeson, insisted the trial was about the care they provided as parents, not about their beliefs [Me: which, I concede, are apparently "fringe"].
"It's never been a referendum on the church. This case involves parents who didn't understand how sick their child was," he said. [emphasis added]

Now don't get me wrong. I am appalled by the fact that people ignore science and reason, and let bronze age mythology rule their lives. But I agree with the defense on this case, it isn't their belief that science is apparently an affront to religion, it is that they are totally unqualified to act as a parent. However, this argument of ignorance does not give them a pass (the defense wants the sentence to be reduced to probation). I understand it is the defense's job to get the best result for their client, but the possible sentence of 16-18 months seems lenient to me. Especially since this group has a track record for not understanding how sick some child is (their grand-daughter died just 9 months prior under similar circumstances).

We aren't talking about the sniffles or a sore throat. We are talking about RENAL FAILURE. The 16 year old's Blood-Urea-Nitrogen level was 288 milligrams/deciliter (kidney failure starts around 60, normal levels are between 7 and 20). Science-based medicine could have saved this kid, "up until the day he died". Science-based medicine could have saved the grand-daughter's life. Faith-"healing" robbed these kids of their lives.

Un-Natural Disasters

2010-01-31T18:50:00.003-07:00

Sergio Mora published a paper in the Journal of the Geological Society (here subscription is required for full text*). This was published back in December 2009, but it took on new (and rather unfortunate) significance in Haiti recently. It is really an excellent paper, he presented something similar as the keynote speaker at the 1st North American Landslide Conference in Vail, CO 2007. My summary doesn't do the paper justice, so I strongly suggest anyone reading this post find a copy of this article.

Sergio's paper "Disasters are not natural: risk management, a tool for development" labels "natural" disasters as the result of economics and/or political shortsightedness. While it is true that the processes of the earth contribute to these disasters, most of these processes can be mitigated (or avoided completely) if proper precautions are taken. For example, landslides are natural processes, but a landslide is not called a "natural disaster" unless it adversely affects a human population center . The way to avoid these disasters is through risk management:

Risk management is inspired by the anticipated reduction of losses (human and material) that natural hazards may cause in the future. It is a policy by means of which the possibility of losses is identified, analysed and quatified, and at the same time measures of prevention, mitigation, reduction and retention or transfer of risk can be proposed and executed.

Ultimately, Dr. Mora argues, proper risk management is not regarded as "high priority" by the decision-makers in a society. "[R]isk management is still regarded as a cost, not as an investment". Governments tend towards a reactive stance regarding natural hazards rather than a preventative stance. However, there is a key to correcting this perception. It revolves around educating both the general public and the policy makers about the potential hazards, and how to mitigate these hazards, in a given area. In short, scientists should take a more active role in shaping policy.

Scientists, while far from having a perfect knowledge of natural hazards, should be able to help lead policy towards taking sufficiently safe precautions to avoid the brunt of the hazards. However, even with this input, the losses incurred through hazards are steadily rising.

Considering these poor results, it seems reasonable to ask why the historical memory is lacking and why risk management performance is so deficient in many countires that are so frequently and intesely affected by natural hazards. Perhaps a part of the answer lies in the fact that, so far, the scientific community has been incapable of generating awareness in decision-makers, of provideng them with tools to address their politiacal arguments in a convincing way towards establishing public policies, and in incorporating risk management in public-private investments and planning.

The clearest example of limited historical memory, on the side of the politicians, would be how often (and to what end) they bring up natural hazard mitigation. Using the U.S. as an example, I'm sure that every geoblogger remembers the confluence of cosmic irony when Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindel scoffed at "volcano monitoring" only to have Mt. Redoubt erupt less than a month later. Another example, from U.S. politics, would be the New Orleans flood. Michael Chertoff famously argued that nobody could have predicted such a disaster could have occurred (though scientists had predicted such an event).

This tends to be the pattern of politicians mentioning natural hazards. Either label preventative measures as wasteful spending, or when (not if) the disaster occurs, claim that nobody could have predicted such an event. Only the situation is more dire in poorer countries, such as the ones Dr. Mora focused on. It is one thing when a country's economy is resilient enough to offset some of the shortsightedness of its leaders, it is entirely different when the country is among the poorest of the poor. This tends to disproportionately affect poorer nations, and as a result increases these nations' future vulnerability to hazards.

I also like Dr. Mora's definition of 'vulnerability' for this scenario. "[Vulnerability] could be summarized as 'the exposure, fragility and deterioration of elements and aspects generating and improving social existence'." He then breaks vulnerability down as a measure of 5 factors.

the degree of exposure to hazards
the degree of fragility (inverse of resilience) of the elements exposed
the social-economic value of possible losses
the alterations to the human quality of life (deaths, injuries, trauma, forceful displacements, etc)
the impact on environmental-natural goods, services and functions.

He also points out that vulnerability can replace an adequately designed society with one of lesser quality. This can further weaken/divide society. Because the more affluent are capable of rebuilding/recouping losses, while the impoverished cannot. This can act to further divide a society, which increases future vulnerability... and so on.

Sergio's solution is one that focuses on education. This is something that scientists hear quite often. Scientists need to be better communicators toward the public. Unfortunately, there are very few publications that suggest how exactly scientists should go about doing this. The best solution I've heard, though it may have been tongue in cheek , is for scientists to pretend they are talking to first-graders (especially important when talking to politicians). Sergio suggests:

The first step that the scientific community should take is learning the language of political decision-makers and private investors. The goals of this pursuit can be to: (1) orientate and influence decision-makers to incorporate risk management in national development planning, public policies and investment processes; (2) foster interest in, and awareness and appropriation of the topic, so that national leaders leaders and entrepreneurs will commit themselves to the actions of risk management

Dr. Mora takes it a step further by offering suggestions as to how one could go about accomplishing these goals:

The means of achieving such a strategy should take into account the following: (1) understanding the idiosyncrasy of decision-makers and adapting the technical content of information and action proposals; (2) presenting the message in an attractive way, making it profitable from the managerial and political standpoints; (3) highlighting the advantages of preventive vision, as well as the responsibilities acquired by inaction; (4) making clear that it will not be acceptable to plead ignorance, considering the present information available; (5) underlining the fact that development and reduction of vulnerability are two inseparable processes.

I particularly like suggestions 4 and 5. Geologists may not know everything there is to know about Earth processes (we don't), but we know a hell of a lot more than the people making the decisions and exposing their constituents to unnecessary risk. I think the biggest thing geologists can do, aside from educating the public (which hopefully we all do to some extent already), is to reverse the thinking regarding risk management. Sergio points out that risk management should be thought of as "a long-term investment ([presently] it is considered a cost)".

*so go to a library/university to download it unless you are a member of the Geological Society.

_______________________________________________

Citations:Mora, S. (2009). Disasters are not natural: risk management, a tool for development Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, 22 (1), 101-112 DOI: 10.1144/EGSP22.7

Another comic

2010-01-20T16:18:00.006-07:00

It's been pretty quiet around here recently, what with a thesis defense in the works and grad apps just sent off. So here is a quick comic to tide over any who stumble upon this humble corner of the intertoobz. Phil Plait posted this comic to his blog recently. It is a spot on representation of science and any branch of pseudoscience, I might even have to start following this strip (Calamities of Nature). As soon as I get color ink for my printer this one is going up on the office door. Enjoy!

(Click to view the whole comic)

EEdiocy Part the second

2010-01-15T12:34:00.004-07:00

I've been absent for a bit. Traveling around, going to conferences, visiting family, getting applications submitted. So I haven't gotten around to the rest of what I had originally intended to be a three part series on the woeful behavior of the Japan Times. Fortunately, a reader of the Times wrote in to criticize the articles himself.

I am glad to see that The Japan Times is publishing in-depth articles on scientific topics such as the "Our growing Earth?" series on geology by Jeff Ogrisseg. But these articles prompt a reminder of an all too common logical fallacy: "Albert Einstein got bad grades in school. I am getting bad grades. Therefore, I am a genius."

The current widely accepted theory of plate tectonics was once widely dismissed, but this cannot be used to argue that another theory, currently dismissed, should become accepted. Nearly all theories are wrong.
The expanding Earth theory must explain where all the additional mass comes from. This is not some minor detail. We are talking about a planet's worth. To explain it, the expanding earth theorizers must overturn a great deal of established physics. Of course, all those physicists might be wrong, too, but I wouldn't put money on it. And, by the way, I am not a geologist.

Tobias is spot on. The EE proponents seem to overlook Carl Sagan's quote:

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

I had intended to finish this off. However, after finishing off the first post I found it to be more of a joyless task whose only potential rewards run along the lines of an ulcer or high blood pressure. What has been said before, by other geobloggers and myself, is enough to discredit the EE concept. The failure of EE advocates to realize this in no way affects geology.

So if anybody wants to read as Neil Adams gets his ego stroked, I will point them here.

And if anybody wants to engage in this tiresome exercise on the third article, I will point them here.

EEdiocy Part 1

2009-12-10T22:28:00.010-07:00

Son of a bitch. Why does crappy science get into newspapers? I was pretty disappointed by the coverage I found on the 150th Anniversary of "Origin of Species", but this... this takes the absolute cake.

I follow occasionally read PvP, an online comic strip. Yesterday they released a clip of Neil Adams inking Santa's demise for the strip. This got me to wondering, what has Neil been doing with himself since last year. I found this lurid post on his website [comment and link added by me]:

Jeff Ogrisseg a feature reporter for the Japan Times newspaper decided Neal’s views on tectonics were worth a major story...

...He worked on the story for 6 months and presented a fair and balanced overview of the Growing Earth Theory.

Little did he know what a fracas it would cause apparently there are some Geologists out there that are P.O.’ed that a (Eyuch) "comic book creator" should read 100 science books and agree with a long over looked theory that disagreed with THEM, ... That the reason a whale sized Sauropod could walk around upright 90 million years ago, was that the Earth was smaller then and gravity less [Neal, you are an EEdiot]. Is that the whole discussion? Oh no, that’s not even the tip of the iceberg. Is he working on a Graphic Novel on this besides the video? You bet ! Neal just has to [sic] much fun.

The Japan Times, from a country that kinda depends on a decent understanding of Earth processes, came out with a series of articles.... on Expanding Earth (EE)! The quality of the research (and the writing) is appalling. Since the newspaper ran a 3 article series, I might as well break it up into 3 posts. Let's hit some of the highlights of the first article:

First up is Jeff Ogrisseg's article "Our Growing Earth". It is a basic summation of the buffoonery that is EE. It starts with this wonderful attention grabber:

Put aside that stuff about continental drift and tectonic plates explaining the world as it is, and consider a globe that may be getting bigger all round like a pumpkin on a vine

I like the logical fallacy of stacking the deck. I also like the idea of putting aside reason. Reason tends to get in the way of EE advocacy. However, let's get to the meat of the article proper:

Plate Tectonics Theory assumes the Earth has been about the same size since it was created some 4.5 billion years ago out of material thrown across space in the so-called Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.

This is a dishonest tactic some creationists use, so it comes as no shock when it is appropriated by others who oppose reality. The Big Bang has nothing to do with plate tectonics. The creation of the Earth has nothing to do with plate tectonics. The age of the Earth has nothing to do with plate tectonics. The only thing this statement gets correct is that plate tectonics makes the assumption that the conservation of matter/energy is valid. [sarcasm] I know, those free-wheeling geologists making rational assumptions, harshing the EEdiots buzz (pun definitely intended).[/sarcasm]

Plate tectonics is a scientific theory that provides a unifying framework for all of geology. It provides a mechanism that explains many of the features we see on Earth today. For instance, it explains why mountains are where they are, why volcanoes are where they are, why earthquakes occur where they do (and at what depths they will likely occur), why we have ridges in the middle of oceans, why landmasses currently separated by oceans have the same paleo-flora and paleo-fauna, why we have oceanic trenches, why trenches are associated with deeper earthquakes, why we have an unexpected horizon in the mantle where material appears to be colder, etc.

Moving on. Jeff makes a beautiful argument on antiquity. An argument of antiquity basically asserts that people formerly accepting something as factual is evidence that it is factual. It is a fantastic logical fallacy. Following this line of reasoning, we better all grab the nearest goat, because I am certain that the myriad of deities people worshiped are getting mighty tired of no sacrifices [comments added].

That assumption [conservation of matter/energy] has gained further traction due to a lack of evidence that our planet may have been smaller or may be growing [I know, if it was smaller that implies it's growing, this is a redundant 'either-or' statement] according to the 18th-century Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis about the formation of our solar system in an ever-expanding universe.

Yes, there is an astounding lack of evidence of nonsensical ideas. Scientists don't have to go around proving 'what is not', there is far more of 'what is not' than 'what is'. Unfortunately, the facts don't stack up well for EE. If planetary bodies in our solar system were growing, we would have detected eccentricities in the orbits of their respective satellites. Keep in mind Astronomy has an ~2600 year history (~400 years with telescopes tracking satellites orbiting other planets). No curious wobbles of this variety have been recorded.

The problem with Growing Earth Theory, mainstream scientists say, is that it would require the creation of brand new matter — a mechanism for which they claim has not been confirmed and therefore is not accepted as happening.

I would like to add that a testable mechanism has not even been proposed, let alone confirmed, it is very difficult (read "impossible") to rigorously test something that hasn't been stated. Near as I can tell, EE advocates could be invoking the power of pixies.

However, it probably doesn't help that it also leads to a reassessment of the planet's very evolutionary nature and, with it, humankind's rise to dominance.

... So... plate tectonics is now being conflated with paleoanthropology and evolutionary biology... wow... Jeff's grasp of science makes me weep for his former teachers. He continues:

All that aside, Growing Earth Theory, summarized in detail from here, is really quite simple and even explains a number of paleontological mysteries.

Technically he is correct. Zero is a number.

The next several paragraphs I will leave to the reader to beat their head against. Mostly, it is the supposition of a kook. Statements to the effect of 70% of the smaller Earth was covered with water, but somehow there was minimal topography (wouldn't all the Earth be under water then?). This, of course, implies that not only are rocks being made by magic, but so is water. The evidence for this? Enceladus (somewhere, I hear an Australian grad student screaming). Because Enceladus has water coming out of the 'tiger stripes' around the Southern Pole, EEdiots claim it is proof that water can be generated from nothing. It can't possibly be that the water was already there. No, that flirts dangerously close to parsimony and reason.

This is perhaps the greatest statement in the whole piece:

In terms of mountain building, too, it's interesting that none of the large, nonvolcanic mountain ranges on our planet, such as the Alps, Andes or Himalayas, are more than 100 million years old.

Apparently mentioning the Appalachians is taboo. Or the Urals. Or the Ancestral Rockies. Or any of a myriad of other ancient and eroded mountain ranges that we will never be able to identify. Also, by "nonvolcanic", I assume Jeff means 'presently nonvolcanic' as all these ranges had periods of volcanism in their pasts as oceanic crust was subducted under continental crust prior to a continent-continent orogenic event. And the Andes are ACTIVELY volcanic today(nice of it to line up near a trench, but then again the Andes are part of the global conspiracy known as reality).

This has the effect of flattening the Earth's curvature, but — because the Earth's granite crust is so thick — it tends to retain its curvature as it can't bend or stretch. Then as gravity tries to recurve it to the flattening surface of the growing planet, it cracks and breaks and throws up mountain-range-size ripples such as today's Himalayas.

I have never heard the Himalayas described as 'ripples'. True Jeff states Mountain-range-size ripples, but still 'ripples'. This portion of Jeff's tribute to the cretinism that is EE boggles the mind. Here is what I think he is saying. A smaller Earth has greater curvature. Thick crust won't flatten out easily. Therefore, it stays bent and you get mountains. This is dynamically unworkable within EE's own framework nonetheless. Any protuberance above the geoid will preferentially erode and subsequently be deposited in topographic lows. This results in smoothing out the surface, not the generation of mountain ranges. Additionally, this doesn't account for flat lying portions of continental crust (they should be bent into mountain ranges too).

For 160 million years until 65 million years ago, dinosaurs were the dominant species and roamed this planet unhindered by oceans, often migrating much as birds do today, Growing Earth Theory posits. Indeed, fossil evidence of like dinosaur species continue to be found on multiple continents now separated by oceans too vast to traverse.

I see Jeff ascribes to the Yoda school of sentence structure. Or as Jeff would write: I see the Yoda school of sentence structure, Jeff ascribes to. I gather that Jeff is making the claim that the dinosaurs didn't invade the marine realm because there was no marine realm. This must come as a shock to individuals who study Mesozoic Marine Reptiles. Those lizards could get fairly sizable.

If you are familiar with EEdiots, and their arguments, you should already know what bringing up dinosaurs has to do with anything [emphasis added]:

From the fossil record it has also been learned that the bones of dinosaurs had about the same density as animal bones do today, yet many dinosaurs were three or four times larger than any existing animals, yet were probably just as maneuverable. The reduced gravity on a smaller planet with less mass could well account for this, growing Earth theorists propose, as well as accounting for the significantly larger flora of that time.

It's the "Earth was smaller, gravity was less, things got big" argument. Too bad nobody's taken the time to disembowel this faulty view of gravity. Oh wait!!!!

So the "terrible lizards" simply did not adapt fast enough as the Earth grew, and that is what killed them off — not some CG-like impact from outer space. There it is. We are growing from the seams as new crust is added at the undersea volcanic ridges. No need for giant rocks from outer space, runaway continents or credulity-straining subduction zones to consume and recycle epic masses of material.

Again with this routine. The bolide-impact hypothesis is not plate tectonics. Extinction studies are not plate tectonics. Maybe Jeff should look up what Plate Tectonics is. The first sentence says it all: "Plate Tectonics is a theory which describes the large scale motions of the Earth's Lithosphere". Just in case that goes over his head, here is Plate Tectonics for kids. The 'bath-toy' analogy is particularly clever.

Additionally, I don't know what he thinks "CG-like impact(s)" are. The Earth, from time to time, does experience impacts from outer-space. Denying impacts is about as sensible as denying the existence of oceans. And I like 'credulity-straining' subduction zones, I find them less dubious than the magical generation of matter.

Few theories are without their flaws, but Growing Earth Theory certainly has a way of growing on you.

Clever. However, you might want to refrain from analogies about 'growing on you' to a group of scientists that are at a high risk for skin cancer. They are more likely to cut it off before it becomes malignant. Oh wait, that is what EE is. Very apt then.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: Steven Novella (of SGU, Neurologica, and Skepticblog fame) also ran across this story.

'Febrile Nitwits' Would be a Good Band Name

2009-12-05T12:56:00.005-07:00

You know all the dust that is being raised about the hacked emails regarding climate change? Well here is a nice succinct Youtube video about all that. Specifically, how a certain group of individuals (denialists) are using some (by which I mean 2) emails to claim climate change is a conspiracy. So without further ado, here is a repost of part 6 of potholer54's climate change series: "Those Hacked E-mails"

My only beef with this, is the use of the term 'skeptic' to describe 'denialists' (around 9:38). Skeptics aren't denialists. Skeptics will accept conclusions supported by sufficient evidence, denialists won't (the evidence is part of the conspiracy after all). Other than that little detail, it is a good summation of this non-story.

How To Get Your Student's Attention

2009-11-28T15:08:00.006-07:00

One of Lockwood's recent Sunday Funnies segments had me laughing hysterically. So I figured I would re-post a slightly modified version which I think makes it all the better. It is a re-captioned Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic originally about the joys of mathematics.

Origin 150th Anniversary

2009-11-24T16:34:00.009-07:00

Today is the 150th Anniversary of the publication of "On the Origin of Species". I figured I would be able to quickly find a story and post a link and be done with it. Sadly, it is not that easy. Doing a quick news search yielded a top hit titled "Darwin Debate Rages on 150 Years After Origin". Of course the media has to trot out this canard.

Even 150 years after it first appeared in print, Charles Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" still fuels clashes between scientists convinced of its truth and critics who reject its view of life without a creator.

Really? This is a sad day for journalism indeed. I feel it is important to note that 'critic' must have been redefined to 'any boob pushing superstition'. I know that our media has this odd notion that objective journalism must include both sides of an issue, but that presupposes that reality has more than one valid view. Evolution says nothing about religion, nor should it attempt to. Science stays strictly in the natural world. Any attempt to move beyond the natural world moves beyond the realm of science.

The article moves on:

[N]o consensus is in sight, probably because Darwinian evolution is both a powerful scientific theory describing how life forms develop through natural selection and a basis for philosophies and social views that often include atheism.

Natural Selection is not synonymous with Social Darwinism or Atheism (and Atheism is also not synonymous with Social Darwinism, nor is Atheism 'evil'). This is a logical fallacy known as 'Poisoning the Well'. Essentially, the author is attempting to blame science for people abusing science. Science can make no moral judgment. Science is merely a self-correcting examination of the natural world. Science takes no philosophical position, but ignores philosophy by and large.

The rest of the article moves further away from the anything relevant to "On the Origin of Species". It begins to talk about Islam and Intelligent Design. They don't even quote an evolutionary biologist, or historian of science in this article. What? Were they all on vacation? How about a neat article on how Natural Selection is as important (maybe more important) to Biology as Plate Tectonics is to Geology.

All this pandering to insecure superstitious saps seems to have made me a bit glum. Since I want to end on a positive note, here is a beautifully elegant image to complement Darwin's sketch of the Tree of Life. I, and I assume many other bloggers, saw Evogeneao's booth at the GSA conference in Portland, OR. It is an amazingly cool conceptualization of the tree of life.
Happy 150th Anniversary Origin.

A Quick Joke

2009-11-23T15:01:00.006-07:00

Well would you look at that. "Blog" is an increasingly popular buzzword in the published literature.You gotta feel bad for all those postmodern, pico-cybernetics, that run on cold-fusion though.

Hiatus post

2009-11-16T15:22:00.004-07:00

I've been extremely busy recently getting ready for AGU, applying to PhD programs, finishing off my thesis, etc. So I apologize for not keeping up to date on the blogging side of life. I've got some vague ideas of what will be coming down the pipe, but nothing really worth posting yet. So this is an apology of sorts.

On something to contribute to the world. It has snowed quite a bit here. The city has done their usual bang-up job of not plowing anything so that snow on the roads, and the few sidewalks we have, just gets packed down into a thick sheet of ice. Moreover, for the first few days people were driving around with big mounds of snow all over their cars. While following behind these yahoos, I was just waiting for the impeding road hazard resulting from their car calving a 'snowberg' in the middle of the road (I gave them extra space just in case). I thought I was the only one who gets annoyed when people don't clear off their ENTIRE car (roof, hood, trunk,... everything), but I guess I was wrong.

So, next time it snows in your area, think about people behind your car as well. Do a proper job of cleaning of your car.

Belated Halloween Post II: The Return of Narf!

2009-11-01T21:38:00.007-07:00

Once again I am posting my Halloween costume after Halloween. Same reason as last year. Both years have been fun. However, this year spoke to the fact that I may, or may not, be a lab mouse involved in an intricate scheme to take over the world.That is me on the left (The Brain, most of the people downtown thought Pinky was the short smart one... dunderheads), and YES the tail is shaped like a lightning bolt. Hope everyone had a Happy Halloween. For my part, I must make plans for tomorrow night. "Why? what are you doing tomorrow night?" you might ask. The same thing I do every night... Try to GRADUATE!!!

OneGeology

2009-10-19T15:55:00.004-06:00

I didn't think I would be blogging about GSA, but I saw a presentation that I thought was quite good. Ian Jackson, whom I first met last year when I visited the BGS, gave a couple of talks on a relatively new project called OneGeology (it's been going for 1.5 - 2 years now, maybe more).

The goal of OneGeology is to make geologic maps from around the world freely accessible to anyone who wants them. I am fully in favor of open access to all data, as this is the best way for science to function. The driving point of Ian's talk was the vast discrepency between fully industrialized data who can zip about 'holodeck' representations of datasets and developing nations which might not even have a steady supply of electricity.

The need to understand geologic processes is a global concern. In some cases, it may even be more important to developing nations to have the access to high quality data sets than it is to industrialized nations. This project continues a theme I was picking up in several of the sessions I have attended thus far. There is a growing need for earth scientists to reach out to the general public and engender an appreciation for the role that the earth plays in our everyday lives.

I am certain that this goal is appreciated by anyone who might stumble onto this blog. However, of all the talks that touched on this need, Ian Jackson's talks were one of the few that actually proposed a means to achieve this objective.

Mirror Mirror on the wall, what's the most bad-ass planet of them all?

2009-10-06T14:27:00.007-06:00

COROT-7b.

Attached is a copy of the press release on this utterly bizarre planet. My advisor sent me a copy of this last night, along with his impression of this planet (which was, and I quote: "WTF"). All you need to know is there is indeed a place in the universe where it RAINS rubies and sapphires.... FROM THE SKY!

Cloudy with a chance of pebble showers: Simulation suggests rocky exoplanet has bizarre atmosphere
(PhysOrg.com) -- So accustomed are we to the sunshine, rain, fog and snow of our home planet that we find it next to impossible to imagine a different atmosphere and other forms of precipitation.

There is a word for planets like this. That word is awesome.
__________________________________________________________
Edit: Discovery Channel, the channel that is ostensibly about science, premiered its new show, "Ghost Lab", tonight as well. Out of curiosity, I tuned in to see how bad it would be. The best piece of evidence presented thus far is a door... opening... off camera. How did they know it was closed to begin with? Anecdotal evidence*. The close runner up, detecting an increased electromagnetic field, when you hold a flashlight next to the EMF detector...

[facepalm]

So for those keeping score: Today, real science provided us with evidence of an exoplanet that rains sapphires. Pseudoscience provided us with a door... Science provides us tangible awesomeness. Pseudoscience provides us intangible lameness.

*This video is based on the work of Prof. Daniel Simons on Sustained Inattentional Blindness. It basically shows how worthless anecdotal evidence really is. Here's the paper on this.

Crickets, Sitcoms, and the Scientific Method

2009-10-05T17:51:00.003-06:00

I am a fan of the Big Bang Theory. Recently, CBS aired an episode where Sheldon makes quite the blunder. Typically, Sheldon will just throw out little science factoids (and the group either assumes he is right or doesn't care enough to object). However, in this episode Sheldon makes a hasty hypothesis, and is called on it. Namely, that the cricket chirping is a snowy tree cricket.

The snowy tree cricket's chirp does, in fact, vary with ambient temperature.

~T = C+40
where
~T is the approximate temperature in Fahrenheit
C is number of chirps in a 13 second interval

(Although, the number of chirps I counted would mean Sheldon's apartment is about 50 degrees. Which doesn't really bother me, because the writers got the basic science correct. Even if they flubbed it on the sound effect).

The mistake Sheldon made was in an inadequate test for his hypothesis. To properly discount the possibility of the common field cricket, Sheldon needed additional data. Namely, he needed to (at the very least) change the ambient air temperature of the room and observe whether the number of chirps per second changed by an appropriate margin before he made any determination. If the chirps changed, it could likely be a snowy tree cricket. If the chirps remain constant, it is not a snowy tree cricket. If the chirps changed, but not according to the known relationship, it is inconclusive.

It seems, from my perspective, that the writers compared/contrasted how the public perceives science to function and how it actually functions. The public perception was portrayed by Sheldon's haphazard application of a factoid of science. The actual process of science was portrayed by Howard challenging Sheldon to provide sufficient data to make such a claim. The public perception of science seems to be centered on science as a body of facts, rather than science as a crucible for reality. All too often, scientists are portrayed as dictating what is reality. When in actuality, scientists are only constantly coming up with tests to disprove (or add further support) some notion of what reality is.

One small gripe with the episode. Once they caught the cricket, the game was over. The two types of cricket don't look anything like each other. Jiminy the Snowy Tree Cricket:And Toby the Field Cricket:I really enjoy this show overall, and I think it is (generally) a good spokesman for science. I am glad that Sheldon was called on his poor methods (and ended up losing the bet). Hopefully, this subtle display about the scientific method, and the importance of peer review, is appreciated by the public consciousness.

Jere Lipps For The Win (and Introductory Geological Concepts 2)

2009-09-29T15:33:00.006-06:00

I just received one of those mass emails from SEPM. Turns out that SEPM is honoring Jere Lipps with the 2010 Moore Medal. This is a well deserved honor. Here is the announcement:

SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology announces that Dr. Jere Lipps (University of California, Berkeley, CA) has been awarded the 2010 Moore Medal for excellence in the study and application of paleontology.

Dr. Lipp's contributions to paleontology range across many fields, including micropaleontology, molluscan paleocommunities, general paleobiology (including organism responses to climate change), and temporal assessments ("temporal smearing") of extinction events owing to incompleteness of the fossil record (termed the "Signor-Lipps Effect"). He also has served the paleontological community as President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, President of the Paleontological Society and Chair of the Association of North American Paleontological Societies, among others.

An added bonus to this is I get to reiterate how awesome the Signor-Lipps effect is and once more suggest people read about it. It is, probably, the preeminent study in regards to extinctions. So here is the link to the paper, and here are some links previous posts (wow, these look like my first posts) gushing about the effect.

A brief synopsis of the Signor-Lipps effect goes a little something like this. When an organism dies, varying factors influence whether or not the organism will be preserved as a fossil. The potential that an organism will be, in whole or in part, fossilized can be referred to as 'preservation potential'. The preservation potential varies between species. For example, a clam lives its life buried in sediment. If it dies while still buried, it has a very good chance of becoming a fossil. A bird that lives in trees and flies around in the sky, will need to die and get transported to a location that is likely to be preserved. So the bird in this example has a lower preservation potential than a clam. Now expand this concept to discuss populations, rather than an individual. We see that rare species with relatively low preservation potentials aren't going to be fossilized as often as abundant species with high preservation potentials.

Now if we apply this concept to the study of extinction events (this is where the Signor-Lipps effect comes into play), we would expect to see certain species disappearing from the fossil record before other species. Regardless of the cause of the extinction. So rare species with low preservation potentials should disappear lower, in the stratigraphic record, than abundant species with high preservation potentials. This will give the appearance of a gradual extinction (where species diversity is declining over a period of time) even if the extinction event is catastrophic (where all the species disappear at once). The implication of this is that gradual extinctions are indistinguishable from catastrophic extinctions in the stratigraphic record. Here is a visual representation of this idea (from Williams, 1994):The larger the symbol the more rarely a species is preserved. The black box on the right is a representation of a stratigraphic column showing where each specimen was found. The lines leading to a symbol on the left give an approximate range of a species' duration. Rare species disappear from the rock record first, abundant species should disappear from the fossil record last. At this point, due to variable preservation potential within the fossil record, it is not possible for us to distinguish between a fast or slow extinction event. Jere Lipps was one of the first people to say it, so he deserves our congratulations.

Cited:

Signor, P. W., and Lipps, J. H., 1982, Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns, and catastrophes in the fossil record, Geological Implications of Impacts of Large Asteroids and Comets on the Earth: Special Paper - Geological Society of America, p. 291-296.

Williams,M.E., 1994, Catastrophic Versus Noncatastrophic Extinction of the Dinosaurs: Testing, Falsifiability, and the Burden of Proof: Journal of Paleonotology v.68 p.183-190.

Fun with Optical Illusions

2009-09-28T12:28:00.005-06:00

Bad Astronomy has a link to an awesome illusion. I recommend it... unless you are prone to visual epilepsy or possibly those who easily become motion sick. Not much else to say about it.... why are you still reading this? Go to the illusion.

Edit: I just showed it to a friend in the grad office, he said it was like a mild version of the illusions he had while he needed to use pain medication. After a day of it, he decided the pain was more tolerable. I can see why, the effect lasts less than a minute (and is thus fun), but if it went on a whole day it'd get old real quick.

A Honest Argument

2009-09-22T13:50:00.003-06:00

Finally, there is an argument out there, against the public option, that doesn't rely on inflating crowd numbers, making up 'death panels', or failing to read a bill before shouting at the president during a joint session.

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Unfortunately, honesty is not in the insurance company executives best interest.

Quiz Time

2009-09-21T12:01:00.005-06:00

Bad Astronomy found a quiz from the Pew Research Center on the topic of science literacy. 12 questions in all (the last four are True/False). The focus of the questions is on basic science that has been in the news recently. And a majority of the questions stem from science that has recently been the center of public policy.

So how did I do? Well, let's go to the graph: This chart shows how many questions (out of 12) each group answered correctly. I assume they took the mean, but they just say the results are averaged.

12 questions, 12 correct answers. Hot Damn.... I.... pay attention to the world...

In all honesty, these questions were not hard. Sadly, my age group isn't very informed. Originally, I was optimistic about the steady upward trend you can see regarding education level. However, it just occurred to me that the people who are most likely to graduate from college are probably the most likely to pay attention to basic science in the media. There is definite room for improvement here, but it doesn't look insurmountable.

The Makings of a Talk: a Former Debater and Frequent Audience Member's Perspective

2009-09-14T12:24:00.008-06:00

It is presentation season again. That means many people are getting their data and interpretations together in preparation for an upcoming conference. And it also means geobloggers are talking about presentations (BrianR and Tuff Cookie's entries into the subject, I will add others that I have missed as I find them). Now, I don't have as much experience as some people giving talks, but I have sat through enough talks to know what works and what doesn't work. So here I present what I think are the makings of a good talk. I have added a bit of spin to them. I was in CX debate for several years in High School, it was my first significant experience in how to set up a presentation that both educates and makes an argument. So, ever since, when I have to make a presentation I tend to go back to the model of presenting my case as if it were a CX debate (though obviously with slightly different objectives).

Introduce a Problem

First, and I can't emphasize this enough, tell the audience what the purpose of the talk is going to be about. I have sat through countless presentations where it is assumed that the audience gets all this information from the ether. Commonly, the only slide dealing with the purpose is the title slide. It is the speakers job to educate the audience, this can't be done without introducing them to the problem at hand. Now sometimes this requires very little introduction on the background (say, in a committee meeting presentation), however most times you will need to explain a little bit about what it is you are going to be talking about. Along parallel lines, think about your intended audience's background. If you are presenting at a national meeting, assume you are going to have a more general audience. If you are presenting at a regional technical session, assume you are going to have a specialized audience.

Significance

Secondly, you need to tell the audience WHY your project is important. This is, perhaps, the most important piece of a presentation. It is also almost always excluded from the talk. This is the portion of the talk that tells me why I should devote 15, 20, or 50 minutes of my time to hear what you have to say (times vary depending on setting). This isn't necessarily something that should eat up most of your time, a single slide will do nicely. In forensics (of the high-school debate variety) this would be referred to as significance. Going back to the debate analogy, many debates I have been a part of (either as a participant, or as a judge) have been won or lost on this point alone. Now this doesn't have to be paradigm shifting, it could be something as simple as nobody has looked at this area before, or nobody has applied a certain model to this setting. Or, "Jack Sprat" looked at this outcrop in 1937, but we've learned a thing or two since then so let's see if "Sprat's" interpretation works with modern understanding.

If there is no reason why you did your study, then why did you do your study? Every study has some significance behind it. Otherwise, you are just collecting facts. As Poincare once put it:

Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.
-Henri Poincare

Or as Charles Darwin once quipped:

About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!
-Charles Darwin

On a side note, "Counting Pebbles" would be an awesome name for a geoblog... or a rock band.

Plan

This is the meat of the talk, and should take the most time. How will you address this significant problem? This is where you lay out your methods, assumptions, field area, and your data. Speakers tend to not have a problem with material for this portion of the talk. The only thing I would add is make sure your data is legible. If you have scale bars (on a stratigraphic colum for instance) make sure they are readable from the back of the room. If you have a cluster diagram, make sure it is easy to distinguish one cluster of points from another. I once sat through a talk with a cluster diagram where location 1 used a blue color, location 2 used purple color, and location 3 used a purple-blue color (they were a part of a gradient color scheme). I was so focused on figuring out which point was which color, I wound up ignoring the speaker.

Solvency

Solvency is your interpretation and conclusions. Does your data support your hypthesis? Does it refute your hypothesis? Does it fail to say anything about your hypothesis? Also, be sure to include what implications this has for future studies (this is where significance comes back into play). If previous studies overlooked some subtle trait, it might mean that these previous studies have to be redone.

Note that interpretation is separate from the data. This is important. If you intermix your interpretations and your data, the audience can become confused. You want them separate because, as my advisor once put it: It is one thing for a colleague to say you are wrong, it is another thing for your colleague to say you can't look at rocks correctly. Nobody should argue with your data, the rocks are the rocks, you can't change it. Your interpretation, on the other hand, is potentially falsifiable (if it wasn't, it wouldn't be science it would be dogma).

Following this general outline, in my experience at least, is a good way to propagate your point among your audience members. At the very least, they won't end up confused as to what your talk was about.

Wendell Potter and the Health Care Modus Operandi

2009-09-12T23:43:00.007-06:00

I am just floored by this. This links to a segment of Bill Moyer's Journal where he interviews a former health insurance executive. The executive, Wendell Potter, is explaining how the insurance firms operate, especially when they feel that their profits are being threatened. Here is a telling quote from the transcript:

Wendell Potter: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.

The interview is about 40 minutes (I think. My apartment has pretty low bandwidth, so after about 7 minutes of intermittent playback, I read the transcript). However, within the first 7 minutes you get treated to several insurance executives telling congress, point blank, they will not stop rescinding coverage of patients for unintentionally withholding medical information (as would be the case if the patient didn't know they had gall stones).

It goes on to tell how the insurance industry threatened members of congress during the Clinton years that endorsing the message that health care should be reformed is a "one-way ticket back to minority party status". The interview also talks about the ease of gaining access to policy makers that these insurance firms enjoy. They have a level of access out of reach of most Americans. I've emailed my senators once or twice (even called them on one occasion), but I've never phoned them up and dictated we will have a meeting.

I will return to talking about Geology later. But right now, this is something that everybody should watch and share. I will finish this post with another quote from Wendell Potter:

WENDELL POTTER: That we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven in the countries that were in [Sicko].

You know, we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada. And that if you include the people who are underinsured, more people than in the United Kingdom. We have huge numbers of people who are also just a lay-off away from joining the ranks of the uninsured, or being purged by their insurance company, and winding up there.

And another thing is that the advocates of reform or the opponents of reform are those who are saying that we need to be careful about what we do here, because we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. It's more likely that your employer and your insurer is going to switch you from a plan that you're in now to one that you don't want. You might be in the plan you like now.

But chances are, pretty soon, you're going to be enrolled in one of these high deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is being shifted to you than you ever imagined.

Haleakala National Park

2009-09-09T22:20:00.011-06:00

As promised, I am continuing my brief travelogue of my trip to Hawaii. Part I is available by clicking on the appropriate link. This post summarizes my trip, complete with some pretty pictures, to Haleakala National Park (pronounced EXACTLY as it is spelled, and it is very fun to say).

When we set off in the morning, it was quite cloudy. We were worried that it might not be a good day for it, but we decided we at least made the good decision to sleep in a bit. The evening beforehand we debated getting up early and watching the sunrise from the summit. Though we did run into groups that made that adventure (these groups all looked very tired and shared their story of woe). Here is a shot of one of many clouds that came rushing past us on our way up the volcano.And here is the same cloud a moment laterFortunately, for the purposes of photography, the wind was gusting around 40-50 mph (enough to almost hold me up when leaning into the wind). So any clouds that came into the area were not going to be sticking around for long. But they did lend themselves to some neat shots up near the vent.I don't know what it is about this next shot, but I really like it.and as an inaccurate demonstration of the wind speed, here is the same shot less than a minute later (and zoomed out a bit so I could get more of the vent):Here is a shot taken of Mauna Loa from Haleakala. The thought of taking a picture of the largest volcano on Hawaii from the largest volcano on Maui was too tempting to pass up. Interestingly, Haleakala is LARGER than Mauna Loa, but since it is older it has undergone more subsidence. If you account for the entire volcano, Haleakala is the largest volcano in the chain. Haleakala is a little over 10,000 feet high. Considering that most visitors started their morning, more or less, at sea level I guess a little cautionary signage is a good idea:It threw me for a loop when I realized I was at an elevation almost twice that of Denver, CO and was still within sight of the ocean. Growing up firmly landlocked might have had something to do with that, but I still get a kick out of seeing the ocean from 10,000 feet up with my feet on solid ground. I am pretty sure that island in the background is Lanai:The keen observer probably caught sight of the high tension wires running up the volcano. They are there for the benefit of the Haleakala Observatory. They tend to focus on studying solar flares and track man-made objects:Phew.... That is a lot of pictures.... and I haven't even started on the photos I took as we were leaving the park. I think this post will have to end with the phrase that tended to haunt my youth. To be continued...

Facebook Status Meme

2009-09-03T18:16:00.006-06:00

As most people are probably aware by now, there is a common thread among many facebook statuses today. People are updating their status to read:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.

I have also tweeted this line a little bit ago, but Lockwood's post reminded me there was one more place I could put this message with ease. He, in turn, was reminded by Matty Boy. I also saw the Greg Laden had something up about this earlier as well (along with a link to a Facebook poll regarding whether it is okay for the President to address the nation, or should he get parents permission). As I find other sites with this message, I will add them to the list.

I only wonder if there is some easy way to check how many facebook statuses (or should it be "stati") have been updated to this message.

Aloha

2009-08-30T15:33:00.003-06:00

As I mentioned previously, I had the opportunity to go to Hawaii this summer. My brother was presenting at a conference in Waikiki and my parents thought the whole family hadn't spent enough time together recently so they insisted we all go (fortunately, they did the heavy financial lifting to get me there... Yay Parents!). So here are some pretty pictures I took from the 50th state (which according to the birther crazies isn't a state at all... go figure).

The first island we visited was Maui where we stayed at Wailea. Wailea is on the East lobe of Maui, and a convenient distance to the most recent eruption on Maui, La Pérouse Bay. The best guess for the age of the most recent eruption is around 1790. There has been some minor controversy about this. The reason why 1790 is an approximate age is French explorer Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse landed in Maui in 1786 and made a map of the bay, when George Vancouver landed in 1794, there was a basaltic peninsula that wasn't on La Pérouse's map.

The controversy lies in the dating of the eruption and general cartography. Reported radiometric dating of the basalt suggest it is closer to 1490 (however, I wasn't able to find a paper on this, just a brochure from a tourist kiosk). Some scientists have also questioned the quality of La Pérouse's mapmaking skills (apparently, some claim, you wouldn't recognize ANY of the islands from his maps). Though I did find this quick blurb in GSA Bulletin by Oostdam (1965). He argues that that La Pérouse's maps were, in fact, very reliable for their day. Below is a shot looking back towards Haleakala of one of the most recent flows on Maui. In any event, these eruptions lead to the existence of black sand beaches. It was one of my goals to find such a beach just so I could collect a small vial of black sand (which now sits prominently upon my bookshelf). Here is a photo overlooking just such a beach near La Pérouse Bay. And I might as well wrap up this post with a picture of Pu'u Ola'i which is the remnant of a cinder cone on the island of Maui that was active about 0.1 Maa.That should do it for this post. I will probably discuss visiting Haleakala National Park in my next post, unless I think of something else to talk about.
_________________________________________________
Cited:
Oostdam, B. L., 1965, AGE OF LAVA FLOWS ON HALEAKALA, MAUI, HAWAII: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 76, no. 3, p. 393-394.

Jurassic Ink

2009-08-26T12:40:00.007-06:00

Holy Crap!

A friend of mine posted a link to this article from the telegraph. They found a 150 Ma old belemnite that still had its ink sac. What's more the paleontologists, being the witty characters they are, used some of the ink to draw the animals portrait and write its name!!!
Move over Bic:

"Belemnites. Writes first time, every time."

The specimen now resides with the BGS in Nottingham. Truly, an awesome find. And a pretty spiffy drawing. I wonder if the BGS will sell prints of that image....

Getting Back in the Swing of Blogging

2009-08-21T13:12:00.006-06:00

It has been quiet around this corner of the ol' intertoobz for a couple of weeks. What can I say, I've been busy. During this time I've also inexplicably managed to get out and about a bit. My family had a quick reunion over on Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii (I will post a series of pictures when I get the chance), I also attended a friend's wedding in Portland, OR (Powell's is AMAZING, GSA attendees should plan a visit), and helped my mom with her recovery from surgery (bone spurs on the 1st and 2nd cervical vertebrae, and also the reason we had a family reunion in HI before the surgery).

Right now, I am waiting to get access to a large scanner that can scan in several figures that are 3.5 m long. So I figured I would peruse the blogosphere. This post on early geology, and how it influenced Charles Darwin, caught my attention over at Pharyngula. It skips over Steno, but it is a decent summary just the same.

I'm sure if you follow my humble blog you probably are already familiar with Iconic Science Blog Pharyngula. So why the cross-post you may ask. Well, it is purely for selfish reasons. I wanted to place the link somewhere that I wouldn't lose it. The options were to either email it to myself or post it on ITV. Since my mail inbox is becoming increasingly difficult to sift through, ITV wins out. Enjoy (if you haven't already)!

We Chose to Go to the Moon

2009-07-20T14:56:00.006-06:00

Forty years ago today, mankind first walked on another celestial body. It was the result of a decade of dedicated work from countless scientists and engineers. It was the result of government sponsored science. And it has been 36 years 7 months 1 day since we've matched that endeavor. Here's to returning to the moon by the 50th anniversary.

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

-Excerpt from JFK's 'We Choose to go to the Moon' speech

BOINC for Science

2009-07-16T18:02:00.006-06:00

I saw 'Contact' on TV the other day and it got me curious about how those astronomers over at SETI are doing these days. One of the first hits on the internet is a link to a project called SETI@home. It is an interesting idea, SETI has acquired a MASSIVE amount of data over the years (and they are still collecting it). It will take them some time for them to comb through all their data on their own, so they've joined a program that allows individuals to 'donate' their idle computer time to running tedious calculations. The result is that SETI now has a computer that can process >500 TeraFLOPS (faster than most of the world's computers).
The group that set up this operates out of Berkeley and is called BOINC for short (Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing). SETI is only one of a list of potential projects that take advantage of grid computing. You can help model protein folding, the N Queens problem (for the math and chess lovers of the world), or even the universe. Now that I think about it, I remember Eric donating his laptop's idle time to modeling climate change.

Summer Reading List Meme

2009-06-09T10:15:00.005-06:00

Still getting back in the swing of things. Fortunately, there exists a summer reading list meme to help out. Suvrat started it, passed it to BrianR, who was joined by Eric, and the party then gained Silver Fox, and now me. Rules are straightforward. What are you reading/planning to read this summer?

And Go:

Well, the ole pile of books by the bed (on the bedstand and on the floor) suggest I am currently plowing my way through:

-The Roman Hat Mystery by Ellery Queen: I am a big fan of mysteries, and this is Ellery Queen's first adventure. All of them are, apparently, fair play whodunnits which happen to be my favorite subgenre of mysterys.

-The Song of the Dodo by David Quammen: I finally found this in a local bookstore (they keep selling out, I assume). So now I get to finally read about island biogeography.

-A Man on the Moon by Andrew Chaikin: I borrowed this from my sister about a year and a half ago. I should probably get around to reading it.

-The Canon by Natalie Angier: I try to avoid science books with too broad of a theme (think 'how to fossilize your hamster'), but this one is enjoyable thus far.

-Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku: I have a friend who constantly makes my head implode by explaining physics at the bar, so I've set out to try and get a better understanding of the stuff. This book deals mostly with cosmology, but an entertaining read nonetheless.

-The Planets by Dava Sobel: I've enjoyed her previous books, so I figured why not read about the planets.

-His Dark Materials series by Phillip Pullman: Jeannette (from 10 Ma of Solitude) suggested I read this series, so I think I will.

-Sand by Michael Welland: Yep, joining in with most other people on this one

-Beyond the 100th Meridian by Wallace Stegner: And joining Eric on this one.

And, like a Vogon making a request to save his mother from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, these books will be lost, found, lost again, subjected to public inquiry, and most likely buried in soft peat for several months before I actually get around to finishing them.

Save the Museum!!!

2009-06-08T13:43:00.007-06:00

The University of Wyoming is planning on cutting their budget. On the chop is the Geological Museum located on its campus [For more, ReBecca has been covering this here and here]. There is a petition that is being put together to save this institution. The text reads:

Due to budget cuts at the University of Wyoming, the president and provost have decided to close the Geological Museum and let the two staff positions there be terminated (museum director Brent Breithaupt and a part-time secretary). The University of Wyoming Geological Museum in Laramie functions to support both public education and scientific research.

The University of Wyoming Geological Museum in Laramie functions to support both public education and scientific research. Wyoming is rich in geologic treasures and the Museum presents to the visitor some glimpse of this geologic diversity. Housing more than 50,000 cataloged fossil, rock, and mineral specimens, it is an important source of information for researchers throughout the world.

Please feel free to write the following people regarding these job cuts and the potential loss of the museum:

Tom Buchanan
Office of the President
Dept. 3434
1000 E. University Ave.
Laramie, WY 82071
tombuch@uwyo.edu

Myron Allen
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Dept. 3302
1000 E. University Ave.
Laramie, WY 82071
allen@uwyo.edu

This act of anti-intellectualism is astonishing to me. The University of Wyoming's Geological Museum is one of the few places where you can see an actual Apatosaur skeleton on display. If I recall, it is also the largest near complete example (A. ajax if memory serves me). They also were involved with 'Big Al' which was made into a 'Walking with Dinosaurs' special. Plus it is a superb public outreach program offered by the University of Wyoming. Smaller museums, like the University of Wyoming Geological Museum, are far superior at interacting with the public than giant institutions like the AMNH. It won't look good for the University of Wyoming to destroy such a positive public face.
_________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Brent Breithaupt is a friend of mine. However, I imagine he is a friend of the ENTIRE paleo-community as well, so one lone seds guy shouldn't disrupt the balance too much. I still think closing museums, like the UWGM, will damage the local community, and the University's reputation, in ways that aren't being considered.

Accretionary Wedge: Time Warp

2009-06-08T11:00:00.003-06:00

Lockwood at Outside the Interzone is hosting the June Accretionary Wedge. The rules are simple:

“Where and when would you most like to visit to witness and analyze an event in Earth’s history?” Suppose you have a space-time machine to (safely and comfortably) watch an event unfold; which event would you most like to see? Why? What do we already know or hypothesize about that event that appeals to you, or that you would like to test? What would be the result, the upshot, of knowing more about this event? You do not necessarily need to limit yourself to Earth, nor to the past. You do not need to limit yourself to a particular instant if peeking several times over a period of minutes or ages helps you envision the evolution of something. You do not need to limit yourself to environments that could support life as we know it... imagine being able to take a time-sampling of magmatic composition from 10 miles below the surface as a nascent mid-ocean ridge opens up, or examining the circumference of the vent during one of Yellowstone's mega-eruptions! I'll tell you, this technology is basically magic. (See the third law here.) Feel free to toss in a few "also-rans" of your favorite day-dreams, but please develop one.

So, just like the mainstay of the best Star Trek movies (excluding Wrath of Kahn of course), we will be time traveling. My first impulse is to say "I want to see the KPg extinction, because nobody really understands anything about it". There are lots of correlations, but there is no evidence, beyond circumstantial, for a causative agent. I could broaden this out to mass extinctions in general for the same reason. There are a good many geomyths propagating in the field of extinction studies, and it might be nice to get some answers to move the conversation forward. I would expand on this further, but volcanista beat me to the punch. Also, since this is tangential to what I am working on, I would like to expand my horizons.
I think I will take advantage of the non-limitation to Earth clause and couple that with the time-lapse clause. It might be fun to observe how Martian tectonism quieted down over time, and collecting data from that event would advance our current understanding of tectonics and planetary geology. We know that Mars has been, for all intents and purposes, tectonically quiet for quite a while. One line of evidence comes from the largest volcano in the solar system, Olympus Mons. This volcano is thought to have formed as the result of a hot spot. However, since there is no hot spot trackway, like we see in the Hawaiian islands, it is unlikely that the 'plate' that contains Olympus Mons has undergone any motion. Events of Olympus Mons have been dated at ~115 Maa, so Mars has been tectonically quiet for at least that long.

One idea as to why Mars is tectonically quiet is it no longer has a sufficient heat engine to drive tectonism. Tectonics happening on Earth is a side effect of several mechanisms, one of which is the Earth is cooling down (there are multiple inputs into the system, so it is not a simple linear heat decay as has been proposed in the past). However, if you were to fast forward the Earth cooling down, hypothetically the lithosphere will thicken. If this rigid zone becomes too thick, the plates will lock up and the Earth will become a tectonically quite body.

Similarly, it would be fun to observe Venus' runaway green-house effect from the beginning. Would Venus have initially experienced tectonism similar to the Earth, or did it always have a 'funky' form of tectonism? Venus is very similar to Earth in mass and, to my understanding, composition. However, it is a green house with no liquid water remaining. And with the surface temperatures capable of melting lead, we are currently restricted to observing Venus from orbit. Venus also experiences Global Resurfacing Events (The last one ended ~300 Maa). The Earth cools primarily via convection which manifests itself as Plate Tectonics. Venus, on the other hand, does not seem to have an analogous mechanism. So it is hypothesized that heat builds up in Venus' interior until it is sufficient to initiate global volcanism, which resurfaces the whole planet and the process of heat building up starts over.

These two transitions would be quite helpful in figuring out the dynamics behind tectonics and the evolution of terrestrial planetary bodies.

Death of Print... Dead?

2009-04-27T17:58:00.009-06:00

I just stumbled upon an interesting article in my Blog roll, click here for the link (original article here). The primary thrust of the article is the biased source of information pertaining to the 'printed journalism is dead' theme that recurs fairly frequently in the blogosphere. Most individuals who report the end of newspapers are looking at few studies of newspapers, with actual data, and rely on their own anecdotal evidence. such as:

"This is total bs. The only printed publications I read (outside of books) is when I travel on planes. Crap, my 80 year old dad only reads on-line newspapers. This story is a total industry plant. If this was the case why has the size of my local paper shrunk down to "high school" paper size in the last couple years?"

This individual is essentially attacking the problem by using anecdotal evidence, without realizing that he may not be a representative sample of the overall population. The article (linked above) even points out that individuals with this personality are NOT the norm, and dubs them 'information junkies'. Instead the author takes a more detached approach to the problem and discovers that the phenomena that we are observing in the media today is much more nuanced than the 'information junkies' are willing to sit through.

In a more relevant aspect, to this blog at least, science-bloggers have commented that they have no wish to replace science journalism (even if it bungles the story more often than it should). Instead many bloggers tend to view what they do as ancillary to science journalism. In other words, we rely on science journalism to report the stories, then we report, with commentary, on the reported stories (wow, THAT is a confusing sentence that I would hate to diagram).

But in a positive light, this story posits that there may be considerable good coming out of this 'death of print' phenomenon that we are observing. It's argued that the primary result of this process will be to free print journalism from deadlines, because it will be impossible for them to be faster than the internet and cable news outlets. Essentially, step back and let everyone else talk about the new and hip story (and waste hours of coverage on 'nothing news' where all you see is shots of some building and wild speculation about the media not having anything to report). Meanwhile, conventional print journalism, can track leads and bring together a more nuanced product that is of higher quality.

Imagine the benefit this will bring to science journalism. Instead of scientists having to correct journalists for shoddy work thrown together without any subtlety, you get the potential for scientists to educate the public on a larger, more detailed, scale. I imagine if newspapers stopped trying to rush to print, and let stories mature properly, the quality of the reporting will go up and the readership will maintain itself at some new level of equilibrium. I'm not arguing it won't be chaotic, and potentially scary for people financially involved, but this is the first argument I've seen that has something positive to say about the situation without resorting to the canard "let's charge people $0.99 every time they click on a link". Which, judging by the quality of most journalism as it is done in this current 'rush to publish' setting, is going to keep me away from 'pay for news' sites.

Oh, Good thing I checked in... Happy Earth Day

2009-04-22T15:02:00.005-06:00

Stress is still high, and my computer is still of limited utility. Fortunately, I have access at the school to the internet. So I swung on by to check out the place. Checking out the blog world (via the Blog rolls) reminded me it is Earth Day. I don't have anything planned except reading many papers, which are printed on... you guessed it... paper (at least I double sided them) so my carbon footprint is quite sizable right now.

Well here is a picture of me enjoying some of the Earth's amenities (air, gravity, sand dunes, etc.):

(Sand Dunes National Monument, CO. Summer 2004)

Forced Hiatus

2009-04-13T17:17:00.003-06:00

Hi all,

I am experiencing technical difficulties with my computer and am under some pretty substantial pressure regarding real-world (i.e. Damnable Tome of Arcane Knowledge) stuff, so I am going to be away from ITV for a little bit. I have turned on comment moderation for my posts, to keep spamming to a minimum while I am on this hiatus. I will turn it off when issues calm down a bit, to workable levels. Thanks for your patience.

Time on Earth

2009-04-10T14:29:00.003-06:00

I've been catching up on Skeptics Guide to the Universe during the more mundane tasks I have to perform (oh correct citation format, how you drain my motivation). On their Apr. 1 show, they have a plug for a relatively new geo-podcast. Time on Earth (you can also subscribe via iTunes). It is updated once a month, and the episodes are ~30mins each. So, there we have it. Two geo-podcasts, that I am aware of, the other being Podclast. Geosciences are getting out into this new-fangled media quite effectively (blogs, twitter, and now podcasts).
______________________________________________________________________
Edit: Eric beat me to the punch, so this post is rather redundant if you read both of our blogs. If you don't read both of our blogs, you really should. You should also read the other geoblogs that are readily acessible over in the right hand column there ->
Note: if you don't see your blog there, and would like me to add it, just shoot me a comment. I will rectify the situation.

Bad Astronomy to Bad Ass

2009-04-08T20:43:00.005-06:00

Phil Plait is getting a tattoo. And he is opening it up to suggestions from the peanut gallery (so long as they are sciency). This post has nothing really to do with anything (we will return to geology shortly), except for a way to put a visualization along with the suggestion I gave, the Doppler Effect:The added benefit of this image is it remains scientifically accurate as the skin sags!!! It just emphasizes the principle!

Stick Figure Meme

2009-04-06T12:39:00.008-06:00

Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy is passing the word about a contest from the Florida Citizens for Science. I don't care much about the contest, but I think it could make a reasonably funny meme. Especially since this seems to be a majority of geologists "stick" [rimshot] when it comes to drawing things other than outcrops or block diagrams.

The rules are simple:

Contest for ages 13 through adult (I imagine most of us geobloggers are in this category):
Your job is to create a cartoon that can be used to educate the general public and especially decision makers (state legislators, school board members) about the truth behind one false argument. Choose an argument… and create a cartoon that corrects the record.

Contest for ages 12 and under (for the precocious jr. geobloggers of the world):
Your job is to create a cartoon that tells everyone “why understanding science is important.”

Here is my entry into the meme (sorry I don't think it is very funny, unless you think something like Crime and Punishment is a great basis for a sitcom. Click to enlarge):

Shai-Hulud Discovered to Hate Coral

2009-04-03T13:21:00.009-06:00

Or for those who aren't geeky enough to know a Dune reference when they see one, I am talking about the Great Worms of Arrakis. In all seriousness though, there was a problem at an aquarium in Cornwall recently (click here for the Daily Mail article. Near as I can tell, this isn't an AFD prank, but it is also from a paper referred to as the "Daily Fail"). At night, the coral reef displays would be torn up, and occasionally some of the fish in the exhibit would become injured. The staff of the aquarium set to the task of identifying the culprit, but none of their traps were successful.

Eventually, they resorted to dismantling the exhibit to unearth the culprit. That's when they found it. Meet Barry:s/he (I can't tell which it is, or if it is both...) is a four foot long (!!!!) polychaete, that was responsible for breaking 20lb fishing lines and probably digested (or at least passed) the associated hooks, and in some cases ripping the coral in half!!! More terrifying is the fact that workers at the aquarium discovered Barry is capable of inflicting permanent localized numbness in humans (at least that is what the article said).

So to conclude. Big ass annelid, breaks 20 lb fishing line, eats hooks, rips through coral, AND causes permanent localized numbness is found in a tank. What would you do? Run from the room screaming? Grab a gun and keep squeezing till the trigger goes click? Abandon the aquarium and let the rule of the giant sea worm begin? Well, the aquarium moved Barry to his/her own tank.

hat-tip to Baziak on this one.
____________________________________________________________________
Edit: Apparently, this is my century post. Yay....

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

2009-04-02T21:03:00.005-06:00

I know I probably will. Callan has a post at NOVA Geoblog that did as he claimed it would. Which is good, because today was rather rough.

Intro Geology Concept #1: Superposition

2009-03-31T16:50:00.008-06:00

Geology grad students end up doing a lot of grading (I imagine the other sciences are the same). In the course of grading, we come across some answers that make us step back and re-evaluate our life choices. This series won't go into repeating these misconceptions, instead I will try and cover some aspect of geology that I (and other geologists I imagine) consider common knowledge. Hopefully this prevents the spread of geology grads with red palm shaped impressions on their foreheads. First few posts will focus on Steno's principles of stratigraphy. No reason to start here, I just am fond of stratigraphy.

Superposition

The best thing about some of the introductory concepts in geology is how practical and sensible they are. Superposition is no different. Superposition states that in an undisturbed section, younger material rests atop older material. How awesomely simple is that? Very.

To put it another way, in a section that has not been flipped upside-down (via tectonics), the oldest material will be at the bottom and the youngest material will be at the top. Or "stuff won't float in mid-air waiting for material to be deposited under it", which is how my TA phrased it.

The implications for this principle is that it is a tool that allows us to make relative statements about a sequence of events. If we have a mudstone at the base of an undisturbed section, and a sandstone at the top, we can make the statement that the mudstone was laid down before the sandstone. More importantly, we can talk about the depositional environment changing between two time periods, from one that favored deposition of mud, to one that deposited sand. We can't say anything specific about the timing of the events yet (except to say the mudstone is before the sandstone), but this relative sequence of events is a start to understanding a locations geologic story.

Here is a basic figure of the concept (click to animate): The first, and oldest layer, is the gray layer. This is overlain by the blue layer (the second oldest). And the overlying purple layer is the youngest. See, geologic concepts are, generally, very practical.

______________________________________________________________
Edit: On a similar note About Geology has many excellent posts along these lines. Most recently, one on How to Look at a Rock.

Glacier Photos V: Ride the Magic Bus

2009-03-27T16:56:00.002-06:00

So I loaded these photos up to conclude my series on Glacier National Park Photos, then I promptly forgot about them. I just rediscovered them while perusing through my draft posts folder. So here it is, Part V: Ride the Magic Bus. Parts I, II, III, and IV are available by clicking on their respective numbers.

If you, for some reason, would like more information on the development of these buses, including how/why they were retrofitted, I recommend clicking here.
These buses have been retrofitted to run on propane, which is significantly cleaner than when the buses were first in the 1930s.

Here is an action shot of one of the buses.

These buses were originally produced by the White Company, which went belly up in 1980. However, for the first decade of their existence, they specialized in steam powered cars. In 1918, they left the market of personal cars and focused on mass transit.
The above an below images were just nice decals that have been added to the cars. My brother works with model railroads, so I took these photos so that he could make a replica of these one day.

These two shots are just the look of the car from 3/4 behind and 3/4 front. Once again for the same reason as the close ups on the decals. Plus this shows the placement of the decals on the body of the car.

Martian Mud Volcanoes

2009-03-26T21:34:00.004-06:00

Wow, this is pretty awesome if it pans out. BBC news is reporting that there are possible mud volcanoes on Mars. Here is the link. This was presented, recently, at the Lunar and Planetary Science conference in Texas. I just found out about this via geologynews twitter feed. So I don't know much about it yet myself, but if I find anything more than the BBC article I will make sure to update people.

If this is correct, it could explain the source of the methane that we observe in Mars' atmosphere. So far the only criticism I have found is that this might be a relic of glacial retreat. But I don't know if I would be willing to rule out the mud volcano aspect. Clearly, more research needs to be done on this!
______________________________________________________________
Edit: Apparently this should not come as a surprise to the geobloggers, I just realized a lot of you are over there too and also subscribe to the geologynews twitter feed. Bloggers ALSO on Twitter.... who would've guessed? Apparently, not me.

I Better Not Receive Any Telemarketing Calls From Mars Now

2009-03-23T02:14:00.011-06:00

I just learned that NASA is recording a series of names on a microchip. This microchip isn't just some tawdry "enemies list", as far as I know, it's even better. It will be sent to Mars on the next Rover mission in 2011! How awesome is that? The answer.... fantastically awesome.

You too can add yourself to the next rover. Just click here, type your name and country, and bingo off you go to The Red Planet, well your name at least. You even get a little certificate that you can print out and hang up on a wall, it you are into that thing. I just saved mine as a pdf. Here it is, slightly modified, to show ITV's name instead of mine:

What every geologist should know: Florida Edition

2009-03-22T15:46:00.007-06:00

A short while back, there was a fun meme running around where you were asked to list 10 things every geology student should know. The catch was not listing anything that had previously been listed. It was a fun way to think outside the standard list that, I am pretty sure, all of us had running through our heads.

Well, not to feel left out, the state of Florida, specifically the University of Florida Administration, has joined in on the fun! Since it hasn't posted its criteria in any list form, I have decided to list out their 10 things every geology student should know:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Wow, now THAT is a comprehensive list. What? The list is blank you say? Well, obviously it is because the University of Florida (one of America's 5 largest universities) has decided to CUT GEOLOGY from the curriculum. Now, I could rant about how incomprehensibly stupid this is for a state like Florida to do. I mean, unless they have somehow managed to solve problems like sinkholes, floods, and coastal erosion, not to mention the potential for a tsunami (related to submarine slides, and another article here). But instead I think I will let this comment, from the Florida Citizens for Science, do that for me:

In an era of ‘green technology’, environmental awareness, the need for natural resource management, global climate change and the need to preserve access to freshwater, the thought of decimating a Geology Department borders on insanity. This is especially true of a flagship university that sits about 150 feet above sea level in a state where the top three revenue generators are, in order, tourism, agriculture and mining.

So, what can you do about this? Simple. Contact the Dean, Provost, and President to voice your support for The Geology Department (contact info follows). Also, it would be a good idea, if you are a Floridian, to contact your state representatives and tell them to stop cutting money from higher education. If, like me, you just care about the erosion of higher education due to incessant budget cutbacks, I would recommend you contact your own state representatives and make sure they know that Florida's actions are not advisable.

Website: http://www.geology.ufl.edu

Addresses:
Dean Paul D’Anieri
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
2014 Turlington Hall
P.O Box 117300
Gainesville FL 32611
danieri@clas.ufl.edu
P: 352.392.0780
F: 352.392.3584

Dr. Joseph Glover
Office of the Provost and Academic Affairs
Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
jglover@aa.ufl.edu
235 Tigert Hall
Box 113175
Gainesville, FL, 32611-3175
352-392-2404

Dr. Bernie Machen
President University of Florida
226 Tigert Hall
PO Box 113150
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Ph: 352-392-1311
Fax: 352-392-9506

hat tip to Pharyngula, where I first found out about this.
______________________________________________________________
Update: The higher ups have put off making a final decision until they know what their financial situation is (here). I would still contact the university officials and your state representatives. Don't let them consider the prospect of dismantling an effective science program as a viable option to save money in the short term.

Permo-Triassic Boundary NOT the Event of the Season

2009-03-20T16:17:00.005-06:00

Have you ever had one of those moments, where you read a paper, and you realize the paper is saying...pretty much everything you have been working on for the past few seasons? I just had one of these precious moments. Fortunately, I don't think negates my efforts though. In this case, the paper's location is on the opposite side of the world and approximately 190 Ma earlier. So I think I am safe. *Phew*

The paper in question is Gastaldo et al, 2009 (availble here). This was published in the March issue of Geology, which means you will have to meander over to your local library/university computer to gain access, or just join the GSA.

The deposits spanning the terrestrial Permo-Triassic (P-Tr) boundary are fluvio-lacustrine, with the placement of the boundary based on the position of a succession of laminated beds. Gastaldo et al. seek to determine the legitimacy of using lithostratigraphic means to evaluate the position of the P-Tr boundary. For those not in the know, lithostratigraphy is a subset of stratigraphy which focuses only on characteristics of the rocks themselves to define stratigraphic relationships. In other words, sandstones correlate with sandstones, mudstones with mudstones, etc. Lithostratigraphy is a fairly useful tool for some purposes, but it is inadequate for other purposes. So if you are using lithostratigraphy to help examine some aspect of the geologic record, you better make certain that lithostratigraphy can do what you think it can do.

In the case of fluvial (rivers) deposits and lacustrine (lake) deposits, lithostratigraphy is rife with internal discontinuities. To put it another way, rivers move and lakes can dry up. The upshot of this is that moving laterally in these depositional environments might mean that you are crossing timelines as well. If workers don't take this into account when they are recording their observations, they will have transcribed errors into their data set. For some studies, this is a trivial problem. However, when workers are examining an extinction event, like the one that happened at the P-Tr boundary, these subtle internal discontinuities can lead to erroneous interpretations.

And, in point of fact, the authors determine that the P-Tr boundary (the laminated beds) are diachronous. Which means that these beds were not laid down at the same time, and should not be used to interpret a basin-wide event.

The only problem I have with this paper is how they established their stratigraphic framework. The authors set out to evaluate the utility of lithostratigraphy as a proxy for basin-wide events. Yet, when they set up their stratigraphic framework, they based it on.... lithostratigraphy. To me, this seems akin to using a word to define itself. It doesn't invalidate the conclusions, but I think they could have made a better point by evaluating the lithostratigraphy with some other form of stratigraphy. For example, this paper would have been a much stronger argument if they set up the stratigraphic framework based on some chronostratigraphic criteria.

Chronostratigraphy is essentially "Time Stratigraphy". By looking at deposits that could only have been deposited at approximately the same time (or, in the case of ash deposits, at the same time), it is possible to evaluate the timing of depositional events throughout a basin. A commonly used chronostratigraphic marker, in a terrestrial setting, is palynology (looking at pollen preserved in the rocks). This will provide some "fuzziness" in the data set, because the pollen can be reworked, but this is a better chronostratigraphic framework than nothing. The best chronostratigraphic markers are event beds, like an ash deposit. These can be radiometrically dated, and best of all, they can't be reworked without diluting the ash to the point where it is unrecognizable (it turns out ash deposits have a VERY low preservation potential in most terrestrial settings).

That critique aside, this paper still makes a valid point. Lithostratigraphy, on its own, is an inadequate tool to evaluate the timing of non-localized events (events limited to ~ 1km radius) in terrestrial settings.

citation:

Gastaldo, R., Neveling, J., Clark, C., & Newbury, S. (2009). The terrestrial Permian-Triassic boundary event bed is a nonevent Geology, 37 (3), 199-202 DOI: 10.1130/G25255A.1

Sun Column

2009-03-18T19:19:00.005-06:00

I was just returning to my apartment after picking up some groceries when I looked up and noticed a sun column. I had never seen one before, so I was reasonably excited. I quickly put down my groceries in my kitchen, grabbed my camera and started clicking away. The cause of this phenomenon is sunlight being refracted up into the atmosphere by ice. Here is one of the better pictures, where the sun column isn't just blotted out by, you know, it being a picture of the sun: Now, I should probably get back to packing away the groceries.
______________________________________________________________
Edit: If you read the comments, you will see that Chuck, from Lounge of the Lab Lemming, also has an excellent picture of a sun column. I recommend that everyone check it out.

While in the meme mood....

2009-03-16T17:47:00.005-06:00

There is another one of these. “What are ten things that every geology major ought to know about? The only restriction is you're not allowed to list anything that has already been listed by a previous geoblogger. You don't have to list everything, just ten important things."
My ten things:

1. Gravity happens
2. The Earth is a Dynamic Entity
3. Uniformitarianism
4. The Earth is not a closed system
5. Radiometric dating is not synonymous with C14 dating. While we are at it, let's get them to understand how radiometric dating works and how some creationists manipulate the results.
6. I guess this would lead nicely into Deep Time (Not limited to age of Earth, cover the Time Scale, 85% of Earth's history is dominated by single celled organisms, etc).
7. There were more than one Mass Extinction (Dinos weren't even killed by the biggest)
8. The Earth has a finite amount of resources and that ALL of our resources (with the exception of solar power I suppose) are directly derived FROM the Earth.
9. Steno's Principles of Stratigraphy (Superposition, Lateral Continuity, Inclusions, Cross-cutting relationships, and Original Horizontality)
10. Faunal Succession

Hmmm. Some of these get awful close to Mel's and Callan's lists. I'm not changing them, because I think they are slight modifications on a theme. Eric also has a list up. I agree with him that this will get very difficult as the meme progresses. Good Luck!
______________________________________________________________
Edit: It is also up at Good Schist Hmmm.... I more or less mirrored the radiometric dating requirement... Oh well, number 9 can be broken into 5 separate principles if the meme overlords are that picky about no repetitions. I'm still not changing it ;P

Spring Meme? Not Yet....

2009-03-16T17:30:00.005-06:00

There is a Spring meme running around providing the tantalizing prospect of getting outdoors. Not so where I am. It is a bad sign when the Google weather app doesn't even show the snow symbol, just a snowman. Here is the view from my apartment of the Gallatin Range
I promise there is a mountain range back behind all the snow and low lying clouds. Previous participants in the Spring meme include: Kim, Silver Fox, Callan, and Geology Happens. Actually this is probably a good thing. We didn't really get any snow this fall. So, unless dry grass and trees become fire proof, this is the best way to avoid a miserably smokey summer.

Martian Fans

2009-03-12T16:11:00.011-06:00

In the recent issue of Geology, there is a report by Schon et al. on constraining the age of depositional fans by using impact crater density and cratering rays. The title of the paper is "Unique Chronostratigraphic Marker in Depositional Fan Stratigraphy on Mars: Evidence for ca. 1.25 Ma Gully Activity and Surficial Meltwater Origin"

These depositional fans have several potential mechanisms of formation. Schon et al. divide these mechanisms into 3 categories: Dry mechanisms, wet mechanisms invoking groundwater release (from a confined aquifer or similar feature), and wet mechanisms invoking surficial meltwater. However, testing these hypotheses is difficult. This is further complicated by an inability to constrain the ages of depositional events.

The authors attempt to overcome the latter problem by applying impact crater densities in conjunction with cratering rays. The concept of impact crater density is commonly used to date surfaces in planetary geology. The technique measures crater density over certain areas and uses this density as a proxy to determine how long that surface has existed. The implication is the longer a surface is exposed, the greater the proportion of impact craters compared to surface area. This method is only limited by bodies that recycle their surfaces (like Earth having active plate tectonics) and has limited utility on bodies that readily recover their surface (like Io having active volcanism). However, another problem presents itself when scientists try and constrain the age of a surface that is relatively small. This is the major obstacle to applying this technique to martian depositional fans.

Schon et al. have proposed using secondary craters and rays that can be traced back to other primary craters. These primary craters will, ideally, be located in regions of sufficient surface area that impact crater density is a viable tool for age constraint. Then by applying a little bit of super-position and, bingo, you have constrained the age of the depositional fan. In order for a secondary crater, or a crater ray, to be preserved on the surface of the depositional fan, the depositional fan had to have been present before the primary crater.

Below is the second figure from this paper, showing an image of the depositional fan being studied. The authors have outlined several depositional lobes. The clearest application of the authors method would be contrasting the crater rich area that defines lobe 1 with the other lobes (2-4) which post-date secondary cratering. Since lobe 1 is the oldest depo-center, it would have the highest crater density. Comparing this with subsequent depositional centers, it is clear that the lack of cratering indicates that the subsequent lobes formed after the intial cratering event. This constrains the formation of the younger lobes to within 1.25 Ma (the age of the primary crater).
I thought that this was a very good example of how surficial features can be applied to determining general stratigraphic patterns. This is, to my eyes, an excellent method for constraining the maximum age of deposition. However, this study did not have any method to examine depositional mechanisms. The authors argument, that this study supports an interpretation of meltwater as the depositional process, rests on the fact that there are multiple depositional events forming this fan. I don't argue this contention, I just don't think that surficial meltwater is the only possible mechanism that can display this pattern of deposition. Therefore, I don't know if there is enough evidence yet to make the assertion that liquid water is (was) present as recently as 1.25 Maa.
Citations:
Schon, S., Head, J., & Fassett, C. (2009). Unique chronostratigraphic marker in depositional fan stratigraphy on Mars: Evidence for ca. 1.25 Ma gully activity and surficial meltwater origin Geology, 37 (3), 207-210 DOI: 10.1130/G25398A.1

But Your Hamster Already Knew This...

2009-03-11T16:59:00.003-06:00

As I mentioned in the last post, precognition in animals is a pervasive, troubling misconception. I'm sure you are all familiar with this myth in one of its many forms. Horses want to be outside before an seismic event, dogs "know" when their masters are returning home, or cows will lie down if it is going to rain. The problem with most of these claims is the phenomenon known as confirmation bias. To put it another way; you remember the hits (when the animal confirms this misconception), and forget the misses (the numerous times when the animal doesn't exhibit the behavior in question).
Animals and Seismicity
This is a poorly constrained hypothesis to test. First off what magnitude seismic event is required to trigger this "sense". Annually there are over a million estimated earthquakes, but the magnitude of most of these events is minor (source: USGS). Let's just limit this to magnitude 4 and above, and give the added caveat that it has to be an event that the USGS will bother to locate the epicenter. In 2008, there were 14,237 earthquakes that fit these criteria (528 in the USA alone). This translates that, worldwide, there were 39 earthquakes a day (1.45 a day in the USA). Part of this descrepancy can be explained away by the presence of oceanic plate boundaries. But that still leaves 1.45 Earthquakes/day in the USA alone.

Secondly, what observed behavior is expected to result in a "confirmed" observation. One site that claims that this is a verifiable fact defines the behavior of animals as "mild response to bizarre behavior". This is a poorly defined criterion to test at best. What constitutes bizarre behavior? How are the animals being observed. Most of the data appear to be reported annecdotally. Which is highly subjective under the best of circumstances. Rancher A might think it is perfectly normal that animal Q walks counter-clockwise instead of clockwise before sitting down, while Rancher X might view that as a bizarre deviation and prepares for the "big one".

Thirdly, what is the window where observed behavior is related to a seismic event? Is it one day, one hour, one year? It turns out, it is whatever time frame is required to support your hypothesis:

For the Tangshan earthquake (M = 7.8, July 28, 1976), reports of fish, rodents, and wolves were cited as early as a month or two before the event

Seriously? An animal acts "bizarrely" a month or two before an event is used as confirmation? You know, I went to Europe a month or two before, across the country, turkeys were killed and served up in a delicious feast dedicated to giving thanks. By this individuals logic, the two are probably related.

All these problems compound upon themselves into a confirmation bias that "explains" a potential cause for odd behavior after an unrelated event coincidentally happens at approximately the right time.
Pets "know" when you are coming home
Consider, if you will, you are coming home at the end of a busy day at the office. Eagerly awaiting your return is your dog. When you open the door, there your good buddy is waiting to jump up on you (no matter how hard you try to teach them not to). Clearly this is an example of your dog "knowing" that you will be returning home at any given minute. This can't possibly be explained as the dog heard your car, or your footsteps, or your key in the lock.

Granted, this is a simple scenario. Most people would be willing to concede this as a possibility. However, there are a number of individuals who take it a step further and claim that their pets know when they are leaving their office and start getting excited several minutes before any signs of the owner returning home are generated. For example, the following story:

The following case is typical of those cited as proof of ESP. It is unusual only in that it involves belief in a psychic dog, rather than a psychic human. The dog in question is a terrier who has achieved fame as having ESP as exhibited by his ability to know when his owner, Pam Smart, is deciding to come home when she is away shopping or on some other business. The dog's name is Jaytee. He has been featured on several television programs in Australia, the United States and England, where he resides with Pam and her parents, who were the first to perceive the dog's psychic abilities. They observed that the dog would run to the window facing the street at precisely the moment Pam was deciding to come home from several miles away. (How the parents knew the precise moment Pam was deciding to come home is unclear.) Parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake investigated and declared the dog is truly psychic. Two scientists, Dr Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith of the University of Hertfordshire, tested the dog under controlled conditions. The scientists synchronized their watches and set video cameras on both the dog and its owner. Alas, several experimental tries later, they had to conclude that the dog wasn't doing what had been alleged. He went to the window and did so quite frequently, but only once did he do so near the exact time his master was preparing to come home and that case was dismissed because the dog was clearly going to the window after hearing a car pull up outside his domicile. Four experiments were conducted and the results were published in the British Journal of Psychology (89:453, 1998).

There we go, nicely debunked. There have been other studies which propose possible explanations for why dogs, like Jaytee, may seem to exhibit precognition. Essentially the argument goes: Dogs are pack animals, and don't necessarily like being left alone. Being left alone will increase the amount of stress a dog experiences. Dogs also learn from where you (the owner) are likely to return from (i.e. the front door). When they go to look for you, they will typically start with where they expect to return. As the duration of their solitude increases, so does their anxiety to be reunited with the pack. This results in returning to the spot where they expect your return more often. As a result, some individuals misinterpret this behavior as a manifestation of ESP. More examples of Precognition in Dogs is available from How Dogs Think by Stanley Coren.
Animals and Weather
Every field trip, one of my friends in undergrad would tell the story of his childhood friend explaining that "Cows will sit down when it is going to rain". When my friend would show him pastures of cows (some sitting and some standing) his friend would explain it away by saying that it meant an x% chance of rain (x being the percentage of cows sitting).

Aside from my friends anecdote, I have not come across this one often. Usually the person telling the story is the most open to the possibility of a "mundane" explanation. The mundane explanation being they heard thunder in the distance, or some similar notion. But every time I go into the field these days, I can't help but think about cows standing around in a pasture. One of these days I will remember to take a photo of cows standing around in a rain storm. Until then, this photo I found on the internet of cows in a driving rain will have to do:
EDIT: 15 Feb 2010

Just found out on Twitter (via Mactavish) that there is a video of a dog 'sensing' an earthquake before people do in the same building. Scrolling through the comments, one individual got the answer right away:

rbelloq:Actually, if you watch closely, especially the light at the top right corner (it's the white pixels at the very top of the frame on the right), you can see the pixels start to jiggle at nearly the same instant the dog gets up.
It looks like a very fast reaction to the tremor.

Nice catch.

Riding the Storm: Landslides and the Real World

2009-03-10T15:55:00.004-06:00

You might have noticed it getting a bit sparse around ITV of late. There are multiple reasons: fighting a devious virus, working on making my figures comprehensible, finishing another draft of the damnable tome (just turned it in. As the kids say, w00t!1!), and keeping up with readings. In other words, I got blindsided by the real world.

One of the cool things I received at the last GSA annual meeting was a copy of the USGS' latest documentary on landslides. It is called "Riding the Storm". I highly recommend this movie. It focuses on two landslide events in California, along with a brief description of what is the cause of landslides. The video covers swift debris flows and slower deepseated slides.

The swift slide is represented by the Love Creek Slide in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It relates the stories of several of the survivors and how they are coping with landslide danger. The common theme is that none of the families expected a landslide.

It also covers a small community being slowly torn apart by a deepseated slide. Most of the families are now the proud owners of worthless homes and have since been forced to move. The government (through FEMA) have helped cushion the financial impact, but the community was still destroyed as the result of insufficient comprehension of earth's processes.

By and large it is an excellent introduction for students into landslides and their impacts. Hopefully, it imparts an understanding to the lay public that geology does not have to happen slowly and they live on the surface of a highly dynamic planet.

My only complaint with the movie is a very brief aside by one of the individuals who helped with landslided mitigation after the Love Creek Slide occured. He made the statement that the landslide happened so fast that the animals weren't even able to sense it was coming. He was making a reference to precognition in animals. I am surprised at high widespread this nonsense has become. I have even heard of a professor use it as an example in a class I TA'd for (I had to keep giving credit for animal precognition as a sign of a potential natural event, though I would always add the note "there is no evidence for this, but okay since the prof. used it in lecture). But this is the topic for another rant.

If you want to view the movie yourself, it is available for download here. I highly recommend it. Plus, at a little under an hour, it makes for a good substitute lecture should anybody need it.

Happy Blog-day ITV!!!

2009-02-27T10:54:00.003-07:00

Inexplicably the earth has completed one whole circuit around the sun since I started this blog. Huzzah and hoorah! So what better way to celebrate than to give a breakdown of what this blog covers in its 85 posts (Blogistics, if you will).

Let's see, first my current top google search that finds (and then links to me) is :

"What scientist named the terradactyl [sic]"

Okay, I know exactly where that links. It links to The Fatal Law of Gravity. I am very fond of this post, but for that to be the search that finds it most often is disheartening. Especially since "terradactyls" had nothing to do with the post, except some EEdiot claiming they needed less gravity to fly (thus implying a smaller earth). However, if you read the post, dutiful internet user, you would realize that a smaller earth imparts a GREATER force due to gravity. You also would realize "terradactyl" is a typo, and it is spelled pterodactyl. Which, to answer your original question, was described in 1794 by the Italian Naturalist Cossimo Collini (thank you wikipedia).

I also receive a fair amount of traffic (a few hits... ok, one or two) regarding the "veritas tree". This most likely linked to my Obligatory Tree Post. And just combined my title with the word tree. Speaking of the title, In Terra Veritas is rough latin for "Upon the Earth is Truth". A good friend of mine came up with the slogan while we were in a quarry. We were bandying latin phrases back and forth at each other. I yelled In Vino Veritas at him, and he responded In Terra Veritas. We both like the sound of it and since then, we have both used it. I decided it would be a good name for a geoblog. He decided it would be a good name for his memoirs. Though I prefer his original memoir title "Stuff and Junk".

Other cool things to note. A search for "GSI3D" finds me clocking in around #5. This is for my visit to the British Geological Survey and attending, then subsequently blogging about, the GSI3D conference. To sum up, it was great fun, I recommend everyone visit the BGS. And speaking of the BGS, I am apparently anomalously high for people doing a search for "the BGs" (bee-gee's). Which are some sort of musical troupe I gather, sorry not too musical here... Well, I like music, but this blog isn't about it.

Now for the content of my blog. I consider this to be, primarily, a geology blog. But I sometimes find myself talking about ancillary topics to geology. So, here is a breakdown of all my posts divided into specific categories. Note: some posts fit multiple categories, like a geologic themed meme for example.

Geology: 36 (42%)......................... The Thesis: 2 (2%)

Other Science: 10 (12%)................ Internet: 6 (7%)
Memes: 13 (15%)............................Other: 14 (17%)
Politics: 13 (15%)

Or you can just look at the poorly colored pie chart straight out of Excel:

Now, the more attentive of you will realize that I have more than 100% there. It actually totals 110%. That is because I bring 110% to this blog EVERY POST!!! Actually, it is because certain posts were counted in multiple categories. Anyway, Happy Birthday In Terra Veritas!

Book Meme redux

2009-02-16T17:14:00.012-07:00

I've got writer's block on the thesis. So I am going to respond to a meme. Chris over at Highly Allochthonous got tagged in a book meme (by Grrl Scientist), and graciously tagged the entirety of the internet (on that token I also tag anyone interested in this meme). PZ was compiling a list of science books every book store should have on its shelves, and I copied over the geology list at some point in the thread's development. An interesting list to be sure. This meme has some different rules though:

Imagine: YOU are asked to assign a half-dozen-or-so books as required reading for ALL science majors at a college as part of their 4-year degree; NOT technical or text books, but other works, old or new, touching upon the nature of science, philosophy, thought, or methodology in a way that a practicing scientist might gain from.

I'm not sure what is meant by excluding text books. I have had courses which use popular literature as the text book (such as Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Prothero). So I am making the assumption that if I don't consider it a text book, it isn't. Without further ado, here is my half-dozen list or so (with appropriate links):

On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: What more needs to be said. This is just a book that everyone should read, especially considering the "controversy" that is going on today. Plus from a geology perspective, there are two chapters dedicated to the subject of geology (Chapters IX and X). And two chapters dedicated to geography, well biogeography, (Chapters XI and XII).
Principles of Geology by Charles Lyell: The book that laid out the priniciple of uniformitarianism. Which is a fundamental principle to ALL science. Without an appreciation for uniformitarianism, it isn't possible to practice science. Please don't confuse uniformitarianism with gradualism, this is a recent trend in the sciences. It is a straw-man used to discredit the concept. Lyell was not advocating a uniformity of rate.
As the present condition of nations is the result of many antecedent changes, some extremely remote and others recent, some gradual, others sudden and violent, so the state of the natural world is the result of a long succession of events, and if we would enlarge our experience of the present economy of nature, we must investigate the effects of her operations in former epochs.
-Charles Lyell
Note: the abridged version is acceptable, seeing as how it is considerably cheaper.
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan: The baloney detection kit is brilliant, I attribute that chapter alone to my high GRE essay score. More than anything this is a great book for showing the framework of critical thinking, and how to avoid nonsense.
To Interpret the Earth Ten Ways to be Wrong by Stanley Schumm: I haven't finished this one myself (I just got my copy recently), but so far I have had a majority of my earth science professors tell my class to read it.
Evolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie Scott: Not specifically a textbook, though it could easily be one. The first chapter discussing the "scientific hierarchy" of ideas is brilliant and could very easily correct the incorrect world view that "theories" are unimportant. And that all ideas can eventually become "laws".
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson: A fun non-specific, non-technical, general overview of the history of science. And, unlike a LOT of general history of science books, it doesn't kiss off geology as irrelevant. Nothing like opening up something titled the "100 greatest scientific advances in history" and seeing not one reference to geology.
Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards: Not particularly sciencey, but relevant in how people observe the world around them. And unless you have a camera with you, whether attached to a microscope, telescope, or just while out hiking, you will probably need to accurately sketch what it is you are observing so that someone else can see what you are seeing. Even if you have a camera, you won't be able to immediately include it in your notes... unless it is a polaroid.
Sherlock Holmes and Ellery Queen: I have often thought about how fun it would be to introduce students to the scientific method by using fair play mysteries as an example. As far as Sherlock Holmes and Ellery Queen go, they are just my favorites (Queen recently more than Holmes, but that is because I finished the canon with the weak Holmes adventures and they left a bad taste in my mouth. Honestly, when the mystery is resolved by Holmes figuring out the culprit is becoming a monkey it is time to choose a new detective mystery). The particular adventures I can't recommend highly enough are:
- Ellery Queen (haven't read all of the adventures yet, so this is an incomplete list. To be honest I have only read the first collection of short stories, some of the novels are next on my list):
  - The African Traveller: shows the problems of making assumptions and having a favored hypothesis.
  - The Bearded Lady: An example of a "dying message", but following the inferences lead to extraordinary conclusions
  - The One Penny Black: Another great example of following the evidence to extraordinary conclusions, very much akin to Holmes' at his greatest.
  - The Three Lame Men: An example of Parsimony (Occam's Razor).
- Sherlock Holmes:
  - Sign of the Four: The BEST of the novels.
  - Red-Headed League: A better example of red-herring is hard to find.
  - Boscombe Valley Mystery: Attention to detail, and the concept of multiple working hypotheses are addressed.
  - Man with the Twisted Lip: Follow the evidence, no matter where it leads.
  - Blue Carbuncle: Once again, multiple working hypotheses and determination
  - Silver Blaze: Events that should occur in a given situation, but don't, also need to be explained (i.e. the dog that didn't bark).
  - The Naval Treaty: Avoid having a favored hypothesis
  - The Adventure of the Norwood Builder: The importance of being attentive to details, no matter how minor.
  - The Problem of Thor Bridge: Don't make assumptions before you have accounted for all the evidence available. Though Holmes was very sloppy in this one.
I'm going to wrap this up by giving myself an escape clause. Any other book I find that may be relevant. I can easily see myself walking home and giving myself a facepalm at some book I forgot. Classic Feynman is brilliant. Albert Einstein's Ideas and Opinions are great. Medawar's "Advice to a Young Scientist" is interesting so far (another in the myriad of books I am reading). Throw in Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" and now you're talking. Flim Flam, by James Randi sounds interesting. Several of Michael Shermer's books would fit the bill (The borderlands of science and Why people believe weird things for example). Bad Astronomy and Death from the Skies sound like an adventurous read as well. Let's not overlook Death by Black Hole, Annals of the Former World, The Seashells on the Mountaintop, The Man Who Found Time (note this is weirdly priced I think), Beyond the hundredth meridian, Galileo's Daughter and Longitude by Dava Sobel are also good. This list could go on forever, so I am just going to stop now.

______________________________________________________________
Facepalm: Arggh, I knew it would happen... How To Lie With Statistics by Huff and Geis should be in there somewhere. Okay... NOW... I am going to stop.
______________________________________________________________
Edit: Suvrat over at Reporting on a Revolution has put up his list.

Wait....What?

2009-02-15T13:17:00.005-07:00

This Scientific American headline caught my eye in Google Reader:

At AAAS, Al Gore urges scientists to get involved in climate change debate

I thought to myself, surely there is more to this story. This is just some sort of ploy to get higher readership. No, apparently Al Gore, who uses SCIENTIST'S data to demonstrate climate change is happening, thinks scientist's are just sitting this one out. The article goes off on crazy tangents toward the end, but the relevant bit to the title is quoted below:

CHICAGO--Fresh from adding a Grammy to his mantle Sunday, former vice president Al Gore told scientists gathered here for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) to push administration officials and the general public for solutions to climate change.

Scientists can no longer in good conscience accept this division between the work you do and the civilization in which you live," Gore said.

"Keep your day jobs, but get involved in the debate," he added.

Now, I appreciate Mr. Gore making himself the political spokesman for the climate change movement, but telling the scientists to get off their asses and start carrying their own weight in this debate seems a bit bizarre. Especially since scientists were the ones to raise the alarm about the climate change movement. It wasn't tree-hugging, hemp-wearing, environmentalists, it was Charles Keeling (a SCIENTIST who apparently was one of Gore's teachers) who first raised awareness of climate change (see the Keeling Curve).

However, he may have a point. Scientists don't take enough awareness of what goes on in their communities. Under our watch creationism has run rampant to the point that nobody has ever heard of evolution. If only scientists would have helped the legal system to realize creationism isn't science. Under our watch flood geology is being taught in public schools at the expense of plate tectonics. Really scientists, we have got to start talking to the public about the things we figure out. You know, if scientists started talking to the general public we could eliminate smallpox!!! At the very least, I wouldn't walk out of a doctor's office covered in leaches and concerned about the demon that apparently took up residence in my trachea. C'mon scientists we should do our part: we've only found the data, tested the hypothesis, documented the change, educated the general public, published study after study that demonstrates climate change from a variety of different lines of evidence. Clearly, we have been complacent.

Happy Darwin Day!!!

2009-02-12T07:35:00.006-07:00

It's Charles Darwin's 200th Birthday today (where I'm at this time). Happy Birthday! To celebrate further, I found a youtube of "malignant narcissism" by Rush. Enjoy!

boo. YouTube took the video down. Oh well, here it is from Dailymotion:

Rush - Malignant Narcissism
Uploaded by UniversalMusicGroup. - Music videos, artist interviews, concerts and more.

To commemorate Darwin

2009-02-11T17:00:00.002-07:00

I know what you are thinking. It isn't Darwin's birthday yet. However, as Doc Brown once said, "You aren't thinking 4 dimensionally". It is now midnight in Downe, England. The town where Darwin did his seminal work on natural selection. So from a certain point of view it is Darwin's B-day. That point of view just happens to be the UK right now. So, Happy Birthday Darwin!

To celebrate, here is a link to Darwin's work on Geology during his voyage on the Beagle. Plenty of nifty maps and drawings, and excerpts of text. Here is an example of some of his geology. This is a stratigraphic section of the banks of Santa Cruz, in Patagonia.Happy birthday Darwin. The celebrations, I'm sure, will continue.
____________________________________________________________________
Edit: Looks like I was beaten to the punch. Chris M. over at Pools and Riffles posted a similar idea weeks ago.

Last thing on the stimulus... I promise

2009-02-10T14:15:00.004-07:00

I was flipping through news broadcasts last night when I stumbled on Rachel Maddow talking with Ben Nelson (D[kinda]-Nebraska). I found his "pretzel logic" fantastically entertaining. At least until I realized he isn't just some kook, but an actual senator with actual power. If you ever wondered what reasons senators use to cut funding to public works projects, it is apparently because they don't want the government interfering with special-ed programs. We'll catch up after the clip.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Welcome back. Now I realize that I laid out a straw-man above, but to seriously argue that building a school will lead to the government dictating how to run a special-ed program is a slippery slope (I just countered a logical fallacy with a weak argument in order to mock Nelson's position). After all:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson

I also enjoyed the lead-in to the interview. Especially since I had been pointing out to anyone who stood still long enough all week that it was large amounts of spending that was getting us out of the Great Depression. True WWII had a positive effect, but FDR's New Deal was working. And the RNC chairman splitting hairs about "work" and a "job" was priceless. Speaking of that, Colbert had a good clip about that. I might as well link to that as an exit to this post. Enjoy!

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The New Word Czar

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Funny Political News

Christian Bale Parody
Joke of the Day

Update: NSF

2009-02-08T15:00:00.002-07:00

The compromises have been made. It was looking bleak last I checked, Friday afternoon. Arguments from conservative democrats and republicans that funding science, and the arts for that matter, is a waste of money seemed to be taking hold.

However, in the mean time the funding situation has been firmed up. Science didn't take too much of a hit, but the NEA lost its proposed funding increase. The stimulus package is scheduled for a vote on Monday. The final figures for science look a little something like this.

NASA

Science $300,000,000

Aeronautics $250,000,000

Shuttle Replacement $500,000,000

Cross-Agency Support (Construction) $250,000,000

Office of the Inspector General $2,000,000

Total = $1,302,000,000

National Science Foundation

Research and related activities $1,000,000,000

Major equipment and facilities construction $150,000,000

Education and human resources $50,000,000

Office of the Inspector General $2,000,000

Total = $1,202,000,000

So that is what it looks like. Bad Astronomy has more information than I have, including a link to the spreadsheet with it all broken down by Subcommittee, Department, or Agency. If you contacted your senator to encourage funding science, it is probably a good idea to contact them again and thank them. Though I think I will wait to see how my senators vote on this before I thank them.

Help the NSF

2009-02-05T15:01:00.002-07:00

I received this email from an office-mate. And since I have a small corner of the interwebs to myself, I figured I would post it up here [modified slightly to appeal to anyone not within my department]. Keep in mind this is not the entire NSF budget on the chopping block, just an increase in their funding (as far as I can tell). To me, it doesn't really matter. I think the NSF has been woefully underfunded for a while, and investing in new science and technology is generally a good thing (creates jobs and promotes innovation and education). Anyway, enough of my blather:

Dear Faculty/Students,

As some of you may know, Senators Collins (Maine) and Nelson (Nebraska) are leading a proposal to cut back the Senate stimulus bill. Their proposal includes eliminating the entire 1.4 billion dollar allotment to NSF. You all know how important NSF is to science and this department. Please take a moment, if you are willing, and call the offices of your Senators to urge them to protect the NSF portion of the stimulus bill. Phone numbers are below. You may get a live person, or you may get voice mail - both are worth it. The more constituents who call, the better the odds one or both of our senators will fight against this proposal. Emails are also a worthwhile endeavor.

The key, though, is to do this as soon as possible - this is being hammered out right now, so time is of the essence. Please forward this to anyone who may be affected by this.

you can find your senators contact information here. Here is a New York Times article on it. And there are scores of blog posts about it.

Areological sinkhole

2009-02-02T15:02:00.005-07:00

Bad Astronomy is reporting Mars is depressed. NASA has found what appears to be a sinkhole on Mars. It looks pretty sweet, especially if you have access to 3-D glasses.
It probably is not a crater because it is lacking certain features (no raised rim, for example). HiRISE is interpreting this to be a result of magma-water interactions. I'm not an expert (so take what I say with the appropriate skeptical position), but I will reserve judgment on what caused this feature until there is more data than a picture.

I can't find any information on the exact scale of the object, but those are DUNES in the center of the depression! I also am a fan of the pull-apart features lining the rim of the depression. It reminds me of a project in my undergrad where we mapped a landslide along the local reservoir. Well, enjoy tracking down a pair of red-green glasses, and staring at your monitor like a little kid. Science is rad.

No. 44

2009-01-20T13:27:00.004-07:00

I saw this image over on Pharyngula. I thought I would bring it over here to celebrate Obama's inauguration. Hopefully the next few years will be a vast improvement.

Geek defined

2009-01-20T09:21:00.003-07:00

Over at Looking for detachment, there is a brief discussion about the definition of geek, nerd, and dork. I stand by the stratification in my comment (Geek = socially acceptable, brainy person; nerd = socially awkward, brainy person; dork = socially awkward buffoon), but I remember PhD comics doing a similar bit a while back.

I am a Cool Nerd God, worship me.

2009-01-20T08:15:00.008-07:00

Though, I am not as nerdy as ReBecca (maybe that means she occupies a higher post in the pantheon). I only scored a 92, which means I tied Silver Fox (huzzah!).

And here are the results of the second version. I am a Cool Nerd God. And, good news, I accept cash offerings. No need to sacrifice that goat though. My sci fi/comic is almost off the scale, history/literature is looking awesome. Science/math, looking good. The others I don't care about (I'm surprised my computer is so high though).

And I am an Uber Space Nerd's Mentor. Now I just need to find an Uber Space Nerd, and I can collect that cash offering I was talking about...

Another year, another meme.

2009-01-10T16:19:00.005-07:00

Yay, the Earth survived another perilous trip around the sun! What better way to celebrate than a little meme devoted to where I have been on Earth?

visited 9 states (4%)
Create your own visited map of The World

I have visited a paltry 4% of the world (boo). Other people involved in this meme: Clastic Detritus (where I caught it), NOLÖGIC, Looking for Detachment, The Ethical Palaeontologist, Highly Allochthonous, ReBecca's Blog and Hypo-theses

The site also has a "Where in the US" you have been and a "Where in India" map. These are what mine look like.

visited 38 states (76%)
Create your own visited map of The United States

74% of the US not too shabby. Though there are some locations that you'd think I would have passed through (I'm looking at you TN).

visited 0 states (0%)
Create your own visited map of India

I have not been to India, despite the delectable curry (T_T).

Anchor's Away! Geology in action in the Mediterranean

2008-12-20T00:07:00.009-07:00

Just saw this on Reuters. A couple other news sites (358 at the time of this post) have picked it up as well. The USA Today story even has a map (above), as well as giving us a general location (between Italy and Tunisia). For the geographically challenged (such as myself) here is a map with Tunisia in orange.

Once again internet cables have been cut. Sounds like the work of that arch fiend "Submarine Slides". Doubly so since the USGS recorded a 5.9 earthquake near the location of the three breaks. However, the cable companies and news agencies aren't putting it together that way. They are much more eager to blame that anchor again (really, somebody should keep tabs on that rogue anchor and its cable cutting agenda).

It's not yet know[n] what cut the cables between Italy and Tunisia. A similar outage in January was blamed on a ship's anchor off Egypt, and that may be the case again, according to Interoute, a European Internet Service Provider.

The thing that always bugged me about that anchor story was that several lines were cut not just the one (remember the claims that it was a nefarious plot against... someone). But they only found one anchor. Not to get all JFK conspiracy on people, but I think the anchor was framed. A submarine mass wasting event seems the more reasonable culprit. Especially since rough weather was reported prior to and during the breaks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but rough weather is a potential cause of submarine flows. I'm willing to concede the possibility that maybe ONE cable got cut by the anchor, but several in one event is ludicrous.

Here is an article from AJS on the topic of submarine slumps and their penchant for cable cutting (sorry, subscription required).

Alternatively, you could check out Wikipedia's free entry on the topic.

And here are some free videos of turbidity currents (well models of them).

On the bright side, if the media puts it together properly this time it might even lead to another geological disaster flick. It just needs a catchy name like "Dante's Peak" or "The Core" or "10.5". How about "The Bouma Sequence". It's moody, and tantalizingly mysterious.

Cited:
Heezen, B.C., and Ewing, W.M., Turbidity currents and submarine slumps, and the 1929 Grand Banks [Newfoundland] Earthquake Am J Sci.1952; 250: 849-873

So true it hurts

2008-12-15T19:33:00.005-07:00

I saw this on PhD, it reminds me of all the labs I've run (I know, "nobody cares"). Most of the students today don't want to be in the class or even understand why they should have to learn the subject.
And this one was up a while ago, but all the TA's still get a good chuckle out of it.
For the record, my soul got crushed when I had a couple of construction engineers start arguing with me that it isn't important for them to learn about geologic hazards (such as landslides). In their lab, they decided rather than not build on, or mitigate, areas that are prone to slope failure, they would just make all the connections to the houses utilities "stretchy". They also came to the conclusion that it was better to sell a house quickly, and put in the contract terms that would absolve them of any liability, rather than build a house/structure properly... They didn't do well in that class.

100 things geo-meme

2008-12-14T17:37:00.006-07:00

ReBecca put me on to this one, and I agree that this one is far more interesting than the non-geo 100 things (the fixation on Paris, as Callan noted, is weird). Others in on the fun are: Geotripper (the originator), Callan, and Hypocentre (among others).

I didn't limit myself to this year though (basically, I have seen my laptop this year and that is pretty much it, also I don't know if some of these happened in the past year see #95). The ones that happened in the past year are marked with an *, my comments are in (parenthesis) and italicized.

1. See an erupting volcano
2. See a glacier * (yep, see my Glacier National Park Photos series)
3. See an active geyser such as those in Yellowstone, New Zealand or the type locality of Iceland (years ago, which is sad because I am so close to Yellowstone right now)
4. Visit the Cretaceous/Tertiary (KT) Boundary. Possible locations include Gubbio, Italy, Stevns Klint, Denmark, the Red Deer River Valley near Drumheller, Alberta.* (I have lived with the KT for several years now. so I have visited it with every fiber of my being. Or you could just look at my profile picture)
5. Observe (from a safe distance) a river whose discharge is above bankful stage* (Poor York, it got Ouse-d. Sorry had to use the pun again. Here is the post)
6. Explore a limestone cave. Try Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Lehman Caves in Great Basin National Park, or the caves of Kentucky or TAG (Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia) (Lewis and Clark Caverns)
7. Tour an open pit mine, such as those in Butte, Montana, Bingham Canyon, Utah, Summitville, Colorado, Globe or Morenci, Arizona, or Chuquicamata, Chile.* (I wouldn't say a "tour" so much as visiting a platform above the Berkeley Pit, I might put the photos up at some point)
8. Explore a subsurface mine.* (Those Welsh were (are?) crazy. see my post on the mine, it is really impressive what people can do with hand tools, time, and a desire to not starve)
9. See an ophiolite, such as the ophiolite complex in Oman or the Troodos complex on the Island Cyprus (if on a budget, try the Coast Ranges or Klamath Mountains of California).
10. An anorthosite complex, such as those in Labrador, the Adirondacks, and Niger (there's some anorthosite in southern California too).
11. A slot canyon. Many of these amazing canyons are less than 3 feet wide and over 100 feet deep. They reside on the Colorado Plateau. Among the best are Antelope Canyon, Brimstone Canyon, Spooky Gulch and the Round Valley Draw.
12. Varves, whether you see the type section in Sweden or examples elsewhere.
13. An exfoliation dome, such as those in the Sierra Nevada.
14. A layered igneous intrusion, such as the Stillwater complex in Montana or the Skaergaard Complex in Eastern Greenland.
15. Coastlines along the leading and trailing edge of a tectonic plate (check out The Dynamic Earth - The Story of Plate Tectonics - an excellent website).
16. A ginkgo tree, which is the lone survivor of an ancient group of softwoods that covered much of the Northern Hemisphere in the Mesozoic.
17. Living and fossilized stromatolites* (Glacier National Park is a great place to see fossil stromatolites, while Shark Bay in Australia is the place to see living ones)
18. A field of glacial erratics
19. A caldera* (didn't see the geysers, but still visited Yellowstone)
20. A sand dune more than 200 feet high (Sand Dunes National Monument in CO, we swung by on a day-off during field camp, I don't know the official height, but they were plenty big).
21. A fjord
22. A recently formed fault scarp
23. A megabreccia
24. An actively accreting river delta
25. A natural bridge
26. A large sinkhole (one sunk the neighborhood burger joint where I was growing up, but that was years ago)
27. A glacial outwash plain
28. A sea stack
29. A house-sized glacial erratic
30. An underground lake or river
31. The continental divide * (I drove over it, it wasn't the purpose of the trip though)
32. Fluorescent and phosphorescent minerals * (common enough display at most museums, except Houston's museum has a computer simulation of it rather than the real thing. I was most confused by that)
33. Petrified trees* (had to find one for the science olympiad, so it wasn't found "in the wild")
34. Lava tubes
35. The Grand Canyon. All the way down. And back.
36. Meteor Crater, Arizona, also known as the Barringer Crater, to see an impact crater on a scale that is comprehensible (and it is quite BIG)
37. The Great Barrier Reef, northeastern Australia, to see the largest coral reef in the world.
38. The Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada, to see the highest tides in the world (up to 16m)
39. The Waterpocket Fold, Utah, to see well exposed folds on a massive scale.
40. The Banded Iron Formation, Michigan, to better appreciate the air you breathe.
41. The Snows of Kilimanjaro, Tanzania,
42. Lake Baikal, Siberia, to see the deepest lake in the world (1,620 m) with 20 percent of the Earth's fresh water.
43. Ayers Rock (known now by the Aboriginal name of Uluru), Australia. This inselberg of nearly vertical Precambrian strata is about 2.5 kilometers long and more than 350 meters high
44. Devil's Tower, northeastern Wyoming, to see a classic example of columnar jointing
45. The Alps.
46. Telescope Peak, in Death Valley National Park. From this spectacular summit you can look down onto the floor of Death Valley - 11,330 feet below.
47. The Li River, China, to see the fantastic tower karst that appears in much Chinese art
48. The Dalmation Coast of Croatia, to see the original Karst.
49. The Gorge of Bhagirathi, one of the sacred headwaters of the Ganges, in the Indian Himalayas, where the river flows from an ice tunnel beneath the Gangatori Glacier into a deep gorge.
50. The Goosenecks of the San Juan River, Utah, an impressive series of entrenched meanders.
51. (battle)shiprock, New Mexico, to see a large volcanic neck (sorry, had to modify this one, it isn't volcanic, but it was my favorite field area during field camp. I saw Red Dawn for the first time the other day, I was pleasantly surprised to see Battleship used as the backdrop for the scene against the three gunships)
52. Land's End, Cornwall, Great Britain, for fractured granites that have feldspar crystals bigger than your fist.
53. Tierra del Fuego, Chile and Argentina, to see the Straights of Magellan and the southernmost tip of South America.
54. Mount St. Helens, Washington, to see the results of recent explosive volcanism.
55. The Giant's Causeway and the Antrim Plateau, Northern Ireland, to see polygonally fractured basaltic flows.
56. The Great Rift Valley in Africa.
57. The Matterhorn, along the Swiss/Italian border, to see the classic "horn".
58. The Carolina Bays, along the Carolinian and Georgian coastal plain
59. The Mima Mounds near Olympia, Washington
60. Siccar Point, Berwickshire, Scotland, where James Hutton (the "father" of modern geology) observed the classic unconformity* (Indeed, but I want to go back when the landscape isn't as treacherously slippery. Read about it here.)
61. The moving rocks of Racetrack Playa in Death Valley
62. Yosemite Valley
63. Landscape Arch (or Delicate Arch) in Utah
64. The Burgess Shale in British Columbia - (only in hand sample and I guess that doesn't count)
65. The Channeled Scablands of central Washington
66. Bryce Canyon
67. Grand Prismatic Spring at Yellowstone
68. Monument Valley
69. The San Andreas fault
70. The dinosaur footprints in La Rioja, Spain
71. The volcanic landscapes of the Canary Islands
72. The Pyrennees Mountains
73. The Lime Caves at Karamea on the West Coast of New Zealand
74. Denali (an orogeny in progress)
75. A catastrophic mass wasting event* (does Quake Lake count, I didn't see it happen, but I see the results, There was also a mass wasting event up in a canyon not far from here that I got some video of, but that will wait until I figure out how to upload video).
76. The giant crossbeds visible at Zion National Park
77. The black sand beaches in Hawaii (or the green sand-olivine beaches)
78. Barton Springs in Texas
79. Hells Canyon in Idaho
80. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison in Colorado
81. The Tunguska Impact site in Siberia
82. Feel an earthquake with a magnitude greater than 5.0.
83. Find dinosaur footprints in situ*(shout out to MNHM)
84. Find a trilobite (or a dinosaur bone or any other fossil)
85. Find gold, however small the flake
86. Find a meteorite fragment
87. Experience a volcanic ashfall
88. Experience a sandstorm
89. See a tsunami
90. Witness a total solar eclipse ( I have in the past, I think it was 4th grade, but I wasn't near Nunnavat this year).
91. Witness a tornado firsthand.
92. Witness a meteor storm, a term used to describe a particularly intense (1000+ per minute) meteor shower *
93. View Saturn and its moons through a respectable telescope.* (I don't know about it being a respectable telescope, but I like it)
94. See the Aurora borealis, otherwise known as the northern lights.
95. View a great naked-eye comet, an opportunity which occurs only a few times per century
96. See a lunar eclipse* (And it was damn cold that night too, maybe I should post on that)
97. View a distant galaxy through a large telescope (back in my astronomy class we had access to the largest telescope in the state, Mars was also at its closest approach to Earth in quite a few years)
98. Experience a hurricane (we were passing through S. Carolina during one (except we stayed as far away as we could) it was like driving a submarine)
99. See noctilucent clouds
100. See the green flash

So this year I am a lowly 15/100 (maybe this is why thesis progress is seemingly slow). Overall I am 39.5/100 (boo...)

December Meme ... sorry

2008-12-09T21:34:00.001-07:00

So there is another meme running around the internets. I picked it up from Laelaps. But there seems to be others doing this as well like Silver Fox, and Drug Monkey. The rules are simple:

Take the first sentence from the first post you made each month and string them together. It starts off well enough, but I notice a trend towards the end of the paragraph where I am constantly apologizing (so much so it has become a generic start to a post) ... sorry ;-)

Well, here I am.Well, I couldn't find the article online.The Planet debate seems to be ongoing. I wandered onto this website.NASA is planning on visiting the sun! At least as far as those pesky edu-macated types are concerned. While people hopefully enjoyed a trip up to Nunavut , I figured I'd get back to talking about something tangential to my thesis. Sorry about being away from the internets (it isn't for a lack of trying). Sorry that I have been away for a bit (the real world ganged up on me). Hey! Sorry for the hiatus.

Das Rad

2008-12-09T03:20:00.001-07:00

I found this while perusing the inter-tubes of You-webs. I think I may have seen this somewhere before, but I don't remember where. So if this is a double-post, I apologize.

Nationalizing Science Standards

2008-12-08T16:56:00.005-07:00

I stumbled upon this little movement while perusing the internet. I also included a link in the sidebar somewhere (above "Index" and below "Qui Teneo Scaccarium"). Add your voice to the throng if you want, but I think I will sit this one out.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that this is a good thing. I think the people behind it have good intentions, but I can easily see something like this being abused. It would also have the effect of further muddying the waters of public opinion on science. Additionally, this could be viewed as a potential violation to Amendment 10 (depending on how literal you want to read the Constitution). But constitutionality aside, I don't think we should advocate politicizing science on a national level.

I recognize that politicizing science will inevitably happen, but I don't think we should advocate it. I agree with the assertion that scientists should set the standards, but who decides on which scientists get to set the standards? I can think of few things more destructive to science education than another Shrub, or worse a Palin-esque figure, getting to appoint "scientists" to dictate scientific standards.

As it stands, it is an uphill struggle for YECs (and other pseudoscientists) to peddle their nonsense. Right now they face a state by state, county by county battle. I recognize it would be a good time saver if scientists only had to fight the stupidity on the national level, rather than constantly repeating the same battle on smaller local scales, but this would also make it easier for the ignorant horde to sneak their garbage into the classroom. Especially under the nightmarish hypothetical situation from above. Seriously, think about the damage a science-hating fundie in office could do with this legislation.

I also think implementing this legislation will have the adverse affect of confusing the public as to what science is. Intermingling politics and science will only further complicate the problem already faced by scientists arguing against lunacy. That is to say, it will give people the false impression that which scientific theories you ascribe to are a personal choice (just like your opinion on tax code, political persuasion, and civil rights). This is what the "equal-time" advocates want. However, science and reality don't take your personal opinion into consideration. No matter how much I choose to believe I will fly when I jump off a cliff, gravity will, again, prove to be a fatal law. And no matter how much individuals claim that the Earth is 6000 years old, all the evidence still says ~4.6 Ga.

In the end, I view this as needless legislation. I would rather politicians spend time on problems that desperately need to be solved (like national health care and social security). I don't want to listen to politicians arguing about something that they are woefully uninformed about every four years. Politicians already are very good, too good really, at not getting anything meaningful done. Let's not give them any further opportunities for distraction.

The fatal law of Gravity

2008-12-05T19:20:00.002-07:00

I just got out of a marathon meeting with my advisor, and I am still a bit out of it (seems like some of the work I spent a couple of months on is now no longer required). On the one hand I can see this making my Thesis clearer and more concise. On the other, I just wasted a bunch of time I could have better spent graduating. So, I am in the mood to "dump" on those lovable wackaloons who have been giving Eric and Brian grief. I don't think I will re-cover the same grounds they have. Especially since they have done a far better job than I think I would be capable of.

Instead I am going to cover the problems that expanding earth has with GRAVITY. I have seen two sides that expanding earthers like to use to argue about gravity. One camp argues that the mass of the earth is constant, and the earth is just getting less dense. Another camp argues that the mass of the earth is growing, and holds the earth's density constant. Surely, we can resolve such a fundamental difference by just saying "Hey, the Earth is not expanding, look at all the data". But that would defeat the purpose of this post and my childish poking fun at the stupid.First we have the Constant Mass Advocates (CMA). They argue, wrongly, that the earth can grow and those of us living on its surface will feel a constant pull of gravity IF the earth weren't gaining mass. On the surface of it that seems a reasonable assertion (if you ignore the whole "earth is growing" thing, and the violation of conservation of energy, etc.). After all we learned in our High School Physics class that:

F=ma

Eq.1

Where F = force
m = mass of an object
a = acceleration (in this case gravity: 9.8 m/s²)

This, however, is just a shorthand version of calculating the force on an object due to gravity. You see, this equation needs some tinkering if we are going to calculate the force due to gravity on Mars, or the Moon, or anywhere other than Earth (note: not all places on Earth have the same gravity either, it can vary due to elevation, local rock densities, etc.). This leads us to the Universal Gravity Equation:

F = GMm/D²

Eq.2

Where F = force
G = the Gravitational Constant (6.67300 × 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2)
M = Mass of object 1 (usually the larger object, in this case the Earth: 5.9742 × 10²⁴ kg)
m = mass of object 2 (usually the smaller object, in this case it is us)
D = Distance between the centers of mass (in this case it can be approximated as the radius of the Earth (note: this is why elevation has an effect on gravitational pull) Earth's radius: 6378.1 km).

By setting Eq.1 equal to Eq.2, you can see how scientists can calculate what "a" is equal to:

a = GM/D²

Eq.3

Since we don't really care about how much force I am exerting on the planet (and it on me) we can just focus on Eq.3 for this discussion. First let's prove to ourselves that the "a" we learned in High School jives with the Universal Gravity Equation.

a = (6.67300 × 10^-11 m³ kg^-1 s^-2 × 5.9742 × 10²⁴ kg)/(6378.1 km)²

or when I plug it into my calculator and cancel out the appropriate units (remember to convert km to meters in the denominator)

a = 9.7998.... m/s²
which can be approximated to 9.8 m/s²

Thanks Mr. Schalhammer! See Physics can work (and prove useful). Now, you may be sitting there asking yourself "Why the hell does this matter to expanding earth? You just showed that the Earth's gravity is affected by its mass, which is the point of the CMA". Why yes I did anonymous questioning voice. However, I also showed that the RADIUS of the Earth is far more significant to the gravity we feel on the planet. The Distance to the center of the Earth will affect the gravity we feel on the surface far more rapidly than just keeping mass a constant. The radius of the Earth affects gravity exponentially (mathematically speaking the square) while the mass of the Earth only affects gravity linearly.

So take home message to the CMA's, keeping the earth's mass constant and increasing the radius will actually DECREASE the gravity we feel on the planet. This is completely antithetical to what we actually observe (you know by practicing science). And furthermore, it defies claims made by other expanding earthers that gravity was less in the past allowing for giant bugs and what not (interestingly enough, an insects size seems to be limited by how efficiently oxygen can cross certain membranes, higher oxygen concentrations mean "bugs" can get bigger. Here is something on that) Through this calculation, we see that the gravity at the surface of the earth would have been GREATER if the earth was smaller.

Let's go to the graph:This is a nice visual way of saying IF the Earth was smaller (assuming constant mass), we would experience a greater pull of gravity. Once again, explaining this away isn't a problem for Plate Tectonics, because with our firm grip on reality, we don't expect the Earth to be changing size.

Now let's move on to the more confounding stupid I dub the Gaining Mass Advocates (GMA). They argue that the earth is growing AND it is becoming more and more massive. They use claims like "Gravity was less when the dinosaurs were around, how else did they get so big". The GMA also argue that the earth is actually gaining mass and therefore gravity is increasing as we move forward in time. But let's see how that works out with the math. We have already seen that holding the earth's mass constant doesn't jive with reality, maybe the trick is to increase the mass of the earth (keep in mind this is still invoking many things that plate tectonics has no need for, meaning this violates parsimony as well).

First some disclaimers. This VIOLATES the conservation of matter. We are venturing into a realm of Newtonian Physics that was never meant to be (like the Octoparrot). Second, they stubbornly refuse to mention how much mass is being added, so I am assuming it to be a given volume of mantle (density of mantle: 3.4-5.6 g/cm³, so let's just call it 4.5 g/cm³). Thirdly, I can't find where they say HOW MUCH the earth has grown (because, in point of fact, it hasn't). So I will assume that they only want the earth to increase enough to compensate for the oceans, which comprise ~75% of the Earth surface (361 km²).

So back to some equations (ugh.... math). The surface area of a sphere can be expressed as:

Eq.4

A is surface area
r is the radius

The volume of a sphere can be expressed as:

Eq.5

V is volume
r is the radius
and a neat little relationship about Surface Area, Volume, and Diameter emerges. Essentially, when you shrink a sphere to 1/2 it's original diameter, the new smaller sphere has 1/4 the original surface area and 1/8 the volume of the original sphere. To put this another way. By "shrinking" the earth to the point where it has no oceans (to 1/4 of its surface area), you have reduced its diameter by 1/2 and reduced it's volume by 7/8.

This would mean the GMA would see a earth with a radius of 3189.05 km.
The GMA volume would be 1.35 x 10¹⁴ km³.
Earth's GMA mass would be: 1.6948 x 10²⁴ kg.

So now let's plug this in to Eq.3 and see what we get for the gravity (a_g) of a GMA earth.

a_g = 11.12029 m/s²

Which is still an increase in gravity from what we see today. Meaning even if you add mass to the planet to counteract the effect of moving away from the center of mass, gravity still is far more sensitive to changes in proximity to the center of mass than it is to total mass. The up-shot is that the "dinosaurs were big because there was less gravity" crowd are wrong.

For curiosity's sake the gravity (a_c) of a CMA earth of the same size would be

a_c =39.19929 m/s²

And just not to let those of us who like reality off the hook, I wonder what those crazy plate tectonic advocates (Scientists) think gravity was like during the Permian (which was when the oceanic crust we have today started to be generated):

a = 9.8 m/s²

As this clearly demonstrates, the RADIUS of the earth is far more important that the MASS of the earth in terms of what things living on the surface of the planet would feel in terms of gravity. As I have said many times throughout this post, this isn't a problem for the reality based community. Because plate tectonics does NOT invoke the earth changes its size (or ways of adding mass out of nothing, or where the energy is coming from to move particles further away from the pull of gravity, or other magics that expanding earthers like). All the arguments based upon gravity being "lesser" in the past because the "earth was smaller" show not only a misunderstanding of geology, but a FAR greater misunderstanding of gravity. Curse you rational uniformitarianism, you win this round! But they'll be back, and in greater numbers...

Glacier Photos IV: The Blossom Menace

2008-12-05T01:08:00.005-07:00

So I figured I would do something a bit different with part IV of my Glacier National Park series. Instead of showing the geology (well, there is still some geology) I figured I would show some of the pictures of the plants and trees that I saw in GNP. Parts I, II, and III are here.

Up first are several pictures of a flower that seemed to be everywhere in the park. I thought that it looked neat, and my parents wanted a decent shot of one, so I took a couple of photos. I have no idea what the flower is actually called [edit: According to Callan, it is Beargrass. Thanks]. One of these days I hope to actually learn some botany so I can point out flowers and such while hiking, but I have different priorities currently.
Next are some pictures of trees in the park. The first one is one I used previously during the tree meme. As I mentioned in the tree post, I think this is the mountain pine beetle's work. It is really unfortunate how widespread this problem is becoming.There is also this shot of a drunken forest. I hadn't seen one in real life before, so this was kinda neat to see (though I've seen drunker forests in photos). Essentially, a drunken forest is the product of mass movement. As the soil slides down slope, the vegetation moves with it. Sometimes this loosens up the soil enough that the trees each take on their own tilt (thus providing the "drunken" appearance). Here is another example of trees helping to identify mass movements. This particular tree got partially knocked over (either from a rock running into it, or part of its slope giving way, I can't say which). However, it survived the ordeal and the new growth at the top is continuing its relentless climb to Mr. Sun.
There aren't only pine trees though. Below are some Aspen that got in the way of my shot. We were driving through an area where they were doing road maintenance, so we couldn't stop. I just wanted a picture looking down the valley, but the Aspen came out remarkably in focus considering we were moving.Finally, some tool marks that were caused by a passing glacier (see, some geology). The reason I threw it in with the plant post is the grasses that are growing in the scours. It shows the resiliency of plants in the escalating rock and vegetation conflict (don't underestimate our chlorophyllic opponents). Thanks for reading. I think I might have enough for one more post in this series (Part V: Ride the Magic Bus), but it might have to wait until the semester is done (or until I get writer's block on the damnable tome).

NASA
Science	$300,000,000
Aeronautics	$250,000,000
Shuttle Replacement	$500,000,000
Cross-Agency Support (Construction)	$250,000,000
Office of the Inspector General	$2,000,000
Total = $1,302,000,000

National Science Foundation
Research and related activities	$1,000,000,000
Major equipment and facilities construction	$150,000,000
Education and human resources	$50,000,000
Office of the Inspector General	$2,000,000
Total = $1,202,000,000