Oh well. I'd been blogging less (none) because I've been using that time to work out an idea for publication. That is now finishing up ok. But I went out for a run yesterday, to get away from my desk, get the blood flowing, and hope for some ideas to flow on how to handle the 'last' nagging issue on the paper (graphical, not scientific). Instead, I took a pretty impressive fall and broke my wrist. Since I'm left-handed, it had to be my left wrist. This will crimp my blogging for a few weeks, as I can only type one-handed, which is about 20% the speed of my normal typing. (and error rate is up about 5x as well). Grr.
Still, I can hit the 'approve' button for comments, and there are several good topics which are getting comment.
And, by way of a chance for me to listen, this seems like a good time to open the floor for suggestions. One commenter a while back mentioned a blog-usable LaTeX processor. I'll look in to that. Other ideas for the presentation? Content you'd like to see?
It's been a recurring thought from readers that I really need a better way of organizing, or at least displaying the organization, the content here. I agree with this. The idea I've had regarding how to do it is either to test it out on a wiki, or to use the wiki as the main place. I've set up one for experimentation. If you're interested in the idea, please send me an email (bobg at radix dot net) and I'll add you to the list of editors (and tell you where it is). That address gets a lot of spam, and I'm liable to be intermittent, so a follow-up message a couple days later won't be a bad idea.
23 October 2010
28 September 2010
Does Lake Superior Remember the Last Ice Age?
I'm more than a little surprised by this post by Steven Goddard. His answer to my title question is yes. That he's wrong isn't very interesting. We all make mistakes, and particularly so when speaking outside areas that we've studied. The two main physical processes which show his error are interesting in their own right, and I'll take this chance to discuss them -- they are rivers (which say 200 years should be noticeable), and what happens to fresh water at 4 C (which says the memory is 1 year [oops, 6 months]).
First, I'll take a look at a less interesting error that minimal self-checking would have pointed to a difficulty. But that introduces a useful tool -- the 'sanity check'. Namely, he suggests that the reason Lake Superior is still cold is because it's so large that it is still adjusting to the end of the last ice age. That's about 10,000 years ago. Ok, suppose this line of reasoning is true. While Superior is large, is it tiny compared to the oceans. If Superior takes 10,000+ years to adjust, something 10 times bigger should take 100,000+ years to adjust. The ocean is about 100,000 times larger (in volume) than Lake Superior.
First, I'll take a look at a less interesting error that minimal self-checking would have pointed to a difficulty. But that introduces a useful tool -- the 'sanity check'. Namely, he suggests that the reason Lake Superior is still cold is because it's so large that it is still adjusting to the end of the last ice age. That's about 10,000 years ago. Ok, suppose this line of reasoning is true. While Superior is large, is it tiny compared to the oceans. If Superior takes 10,000+ years to adjust, something 10 times bigger should take 100,000+ years to adjust. The ocean is about 100,000 times larger (in volume) than Lake Superior.
27 September 2010
Science Cafe
This Thursday (September 30th) I'll be talking about ice, and, better, yet, answering questions about ice at the Annapolis Cafe Scientifique. The time will be 6 PM instead of the usual 6:30. Same location as usual -- Cafe 49 West. Local folks are invited, and non-local are welcome to pose questions here.
24 September 2010
Kitchen experiments
Some simple, if possibly messy, fun. Ingredients: Water and corn starch, baking powder and vinegar.
The baking powder and vinegar mix to release carbon dioxide gas. If you put it inside something with a tight cap that can blow off, you've got a 'rocket'. Just be sure to aim it away. I don't really remember well, but I think equal vinegar and baking powder is the right recipe. But it's something to experiment with.
Corn starch and water is a chance to explore the mechanical properties of matter. (read: mess around while claiming to be doing science) Ordinary fluids, like air or water, react straightforwardly to pushing on them. If you push, they move out of the way. Push harder, they move out of the way faster. Corn starch and water (again, I think it's equal amounts, but experiment) are a different kind of thing. Set a marble on top of the mixture and it will sink through. Throw the marble at it, and it will bounce. !? Experiment. It makes a difference how fast you push. Lots of room for experimentation.
Anyone else have comparably simple experiments?
The baking powder and vinegar mix to release carbon dioxide gas. If you put it inside something with a tight cap that can blow off, you've got a 'rocket'. Just be sure to aim it away. I don't really remember well, but I think equal vinegar and baking powder is the right recipe. But it's something to experiment with.
Corn starch and water is a chance to explore the mechanical properties of matter. (read: mess around while claiming to be doing science) Ordinary fluids, like air or water, react straightforwardly to pushing on them. If you push, they move out of the way. Push harder, they move out of the way faster. Corn starch and water (again, I think it's equal amounts, but experiment) are a different kind of thing. Set a marble on top of the mixture and it will sink through. Throw the marble at it, and it will bounce. !? Experiment. It makes a difference how fast you push. Lots of room for experimentation.
Anyone else have comparably simple experiments?
20 September 2010
Unity of science and reaching decisons
The next two paragraphs were in a private email list where there was then a request that I make the comments public. The situation was my response to another scientist, the topic at hand being the scope of the conspiracy that would be involved in pulling of a hoax that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, etc.. I also talked here a while back about the unity of science:
I think a crucial part of that error is a failure to understand how science works. While you and I (and others) look at it and see masses of scientists from different areas and reach a conclusion, others don't. The extra piece of knowledge we have is that science has to hang together as a coherent picture. If climate people were seriously wrong about the radiative properties of CO2, then CO2 lasers would not work. And so on through a very, very long list. Conversely, if climate types were seriously wrong about CO2's radiative properties, laser specialists would look at the climate work and point to the errors and that'd be the end of the wrong climate CO2 work.
Instead, they take the view that science is story-telling. Laser physicists go along with the climate people because the climate folks are telling a story that the laser folks like, not because there's any particular evidence in favor of it. The "It's a liberal conspiracy", or "They only say this because they want to impose one world government" responses are part of this. The he said -- she said journlistic line is exactly this, as the science is presented as two stories the reader is chosing between. They think the scientists are doing the same thing. (How would they know differently?)
Back to the present:
I'll also mention, in terms of how people could tell what scientists actually do, that John Wilkins is taking ideas on sources for describing how it is that scientists reach conclusions:
How Scientists Think: A Book Proposal
The Scientists Operating Manual
While I'm mentioning John, h/t also to this xkcd cartoon, which captures a certain crowd (an attitude I've occasionally borrowed at least part of) quite well:
I think a crucial part of that error is a failure to understand how science works. While you and I (and others) look at it and see masses of scientists from different areas and reach a conclusion, others don't. The extra piece of knowledge we have is that science has to hang together as a coherent picture. If climate people were seriously wrong about the radiative properties of CO2, then CO2 lasers would not work. And so on through a very, very long list. Conversely, if climate types were seriously wrong about CO2's radiative properties, laser specialists would look at the climate work and point to the errors and that'd be the end of the wrong climate CO2 work.
Instead, they take the view that science is story-telling. Laser physicists go along with the climate people because the climate folks are telling a story that the laser folks like, not because there's any particular evidence in favor of it. The "It's a liberal conspiracy", or "They only say this because they want to impose one world government" responses are part of this. The he said -- she said journlistic line is exactly this, as the science is presented as two stories the reader is chosing between. They think the scientists are doing the same thing. (How would they know differently?)
Back to the present:
I'll also mention, in terms of how people could tell what scientists actually do, that John Wilkins is taking ideas on sources for describing how it is that scientists reach conclusions:
How Scientists Think: A Book Proposal
The Scientists Operating Manual
While I'm mentioning John, h/t also to this xkcd cartoon, which captures a certain crowd (an attitude I've occasionally borrowed at least part of) quite well:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
