I'll make the assumption that astrophysics is science. That shouldn't be terribly surprising, given both that folks tend to talk about it as being science, often as being a particularly beautiful branch of science, and that I've studied it myself. But starting from that assumption suggests that either astrophysics is not science after all, or that many of the complaints about climatology are ill-founded. At least in the sense that if they should be taken seriously (speakers rejecting the idea that climatology is science) then astrophysics, and quite a lot of other sciences, should be rejected as well. Now I do know some folks who do reject astrophysics and some other sciences, so some people probably do mean that.
But let's think a bit more about what reproducibility means. I took it up lightly earlier, regarding pretty much just climate data set reproducibility. Please excuse the narrow focus as just attention to my own area. I'll broaden scope some here.
On one extreme end of notions of reproducibility is the idea that anybody, anywhere, should be able to reproduce your results -- or else you aren't doing science. I don't think that's actually been held to be a requirement for science at any time in history, so such folks are arguing for a change in how science is done. Maybe they're right; let's think about it. As with many ponderings, this goes for a while ....
07 March 2010
04 March 2010
How to handle personal attacks
It's always a pleasure, in part because of how rare and difficult it is, to see someone respond well to a host of personal attacks. One of those exceptional, and funny, responses is from Rebecca Watson, the 'skepchick'. Apparently quite a few folks have decided that rather than respond to the content of her arguments, they'll comment about her eyebrows and other such irrelevancies.
Follow through to the end of the video to her exactly correct conclusion about such arguments.
h/t Pharyngula
Follow through to the end of the video to her exactly correct conclusion about such arguments.
h/t Pharyngula
03 March 2010
Why is the ocean cold?
Folks reading headlines about record warm oceans might be surprised by this question. But it's a real question, if perhaps from a different viewpoint than you might think.
If we look at the surface of the ocean, we see that most of the ocean is warm. The presentation at the link over-emphasizes the polar regions -- they're actually much less of the earth's area. Even so, over half the ocean -- surface -- is warmer than 20 C.
So you might figure that the volume of the ocean would also be some moderately warm figure, maybe a bit colder since cold water sinks, but still fairly warm. Surely over 10? In fact, the volume of the ocean -- average up every blob of water there is -- averages 3.5 C. Go back to the surface map and take a look at how much of the ocean is that cold. Answer: Not much. Even less when you allow for the fact that the map is exaggerating how big the polar regions are (I get about 14% of the ocean surface was at least that cold on February 26th). The importance of those small areas of cold water is that there is no refrigerator in the ocean. Once water leaves the surface of the ocean (except for one even smaller exception I'll get to), there's no way to make the water any colder. So if you see water that's -1.0 C in the ocean, you know it came from somewhere that had water at least as cold as -1.0 C. It could have been even colder -- the original cold blob might have mixed with a warmer blob of water.
Some of you might have objected up there when I mentioned that the average ocean temperature is 3.5. There's a fairly popular error that says the deep ocean has to be 4 C. It runs this way: Water is densest at 4 C, so as you cool a body of water, once it reaches 4 C all this cold water sinks to the deeps. As you cool the surface further, the water is less dense, so it quits sinking. That leaves you with 4 C water in the deep.
If we look at the surface of the ocean, we see that most of the ocean is warm. The presentation at the link over-emphasizes the polar regions -- they're actually much less of the earth's area. Even so, over half the ocean -- surface -- is warmer than 20 C.
So you might figure that the volume of the ocean would also be some moderately warm figure, maybe a bit colder since cold water sinks, but still fairly warm. Surely over 10? In fact, the volume of the ocean -- average up every blob of water there is -- averages 3.5 C. Go back to the surface map and take a look at how much of the ocean is that cold. Answer: Not much. Even less when you allow for the fact that the map is exaggerating how big the polar regions are (I get about 14% of the ocean surface was at least that cold on February 26th). The importance of those small areas of cold water is that there is no refrigerator in the ocean. Once water leaves the surface of the ocean (except for one even smaller exception I'll get to), there's no way to make the water any colder. So if you see water that's -1.0 C in the ocean, you know it came from somewhere that had water at least as cold as -1.0 C. It could have been even colder -- the original cold blob might have mixed with a warmer blob of water.
Some of you might have objected up there when I mentioned that the average ocean temperature is 3.5. There's a fairly popular error that says the deep ocean has to be 4 C. It runs this way: Water is densest at 4 C, so as you cool a body of water, once it reaches 4 C all this cold water sinks to the deeps. As you cool the surface further, the water is less dense, so it quits sinking. That leaves you with 4 C water in the deep.
02 March 2010
Coping with Math
I confess that for the most part, math has been something that I enjoy and have fun with. 'Coping' hasn't so much been my experience; but I have known plenty of people for whom it was more difficult, and even highly unpleasant, activity. Since it sometimes turns in to an obstacle that scares people away from doing science, and I like science as well as the math, I do keep an eye out for books that might help people past that obstacle.
My favorite book in that realm is Sheila Tobias' Overcoming Math Anxiety. Her story was being one of those people who had been scared out of math and science. Later, she decided that she liked physics and would slog through the math she had to, that was preventing her from doing the science she liked. Along the way, she discovered many myths that she had bought in to, things that produced anxiety in her when math was mentioned. Hence the title.
In talking with people, anxiety stands out as a major barrier. One of the myths I'll mention here is that some people just have some magical 'math gene' that makes it easy for them, and nobody else can do any math. But it's only math that needs this magical gene. Nobody says "I can't play basketball, I don't have the magic gene for it." Basketball, we all know, you can play regardless. If you practice more, you'll get better. If you want to play professionally, then, yes, you need good genes. And that's probably also true for mathematics. But you don't need to be a professional level basketball player to enjoy playing the game. And you don't need to be a professional level mathematician to do science.
My favorite book in that realm is Sheila Tobias' Overcoming Math Anxiety. Her story was being one of those people who had been scared out of math and science. Later, she decided that she liked physics and would slog through the math she had to, that was preventing her from doing the science she liked. Along the way, she discovered many myths that she had bought in to, things that produced anxiety in her when math was mentioned. Hence the title.
In talking with people, anxiety stands out as a major barrier. One of the myths I'll mention here is that some people just have some magical 'math gene' that makes it easy for them, and nobody else can do any math. But it's only math that needs this magical gene. Nobody says "I can't play basketball, I don't have the magic gene for it." Basketball, we all know, you can play regardless. If you practice more, you'll get better. If you want to play professionally, then, yes, you need good genes. And that's probably also true for mathematics. But you don't need to be a professional level basketball player to enjoy playing the game. And you don't need to be a professional level mathematician to do science.
01 March 2010
Science humor
No, I won't inflict any mathematician/engineer/scientist jokes on you. (Not that I couldn't ....) I've been reminded recently of some good science humor cartooning.
Online, you might enjoy:
PHD Comics
XKCD
A science cartoonist I've enjoyed for years and recently reread his collections Einstein Simplified and Einstein Atomized is Sidney Harris. You can get an online taste here.
And, though it was never really a science cartoon, Gary Larson's Far Side is a favorite of mine, and was quite popular among scientists.
Online, you might enjoy:
PHD Comics
XKCD
A science cartoonist I've enjoyed for years and recently reread his collections Einstein Simplified and Einstein Atomized is Sidney Harris. You can get an online taste here.
And, though it was never really a science cartoon, Gary Larson's Far Side is a favorite of mine, and was quite popular among scientists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
