Ozon Deliği Sızdırıyor ve Bunun Gibi Başka Hikayeler
) Yazan ve Ingilizce’den çeviren Figen Mekik – Grand Valley State University
“Ama Figen, nemli hava ağır geliyor!” dedi öğrencilerim, neredeyse hepsi bir ağızdan. Gerçekten çok değerli bir an. Belki uzun yıllardan beri yanlış bildikleri bir şey yüzeye çıktı: su buharı kuru havadan daha ağırdır. Hemen hesap makinalarımızı ve periyotlar cetvelimizi çıkarttık ve H2O’nun moleküler ağırlığını hesaplayarak, N2 ve O2’ninkilerle (havakürenin büyük bir kısmı) kıyasladık. Büyük bir yanlış olguyu düzelttim diye sevinirken gerisini göremedim.
Meğerse bu ağır nemli hava fikrinin hemen altında daha yanlış başka düşünceler de varmış. Bir öğrencim sordu: “su buharıyla sıvı suyun formülü aynı mı?” Hangi halde olursa olsun suyun formülünün hep H2O olduğunu duyunca çok şaşırdı. Hatta buzun bile! “Bilimde herşeyi basit tutmaya çalışırız” dedim. Bir iki kız güldü “hiç de bile!”
Sonra başka bir öğrencim itiraf etti ki hep su buharlaşınca H2 ve O2’ye bölündüğünü zannedermiş. Bu durumda nemli hava daha ağır oluyor. Başka bir tanesi cevap verdi “Öyle olur mu ya.. Su buharı, sıvı hale dönüşünce moleküller büyür. Bu yüzden sıvı su, buhardan ağırdır.” Hemen buharlaşma ve sıvılaşmanın moleküler dinamiği üzerinde uzun bir tartışmaya giriştik. Ayrıca bildiklerini zannettikleri bir şey ile (su buharı ağırdır) televizyondaki hava durumu yayınlarından bildikleri bir başka şeyi (alçak basınç yağmur demek) karşılaştırınca, bu iki fikir arasındaki çelişki onları “bildiklerini” tekrar düşünmeye ve düzeltmeye mecbur etti. Bir saatin sonunda “Çok tuhaf, meğerse nemli hava yükselirmiş, kim bilebilirdi ki,” demeye başladılar.
Bunlar gibi çok yaygın olan bir kaç başka yanlış kanı da şunlar:
[1] Mevsimler, dünyanın düzenli olarak güneşe yakınlaşmasından ve uzaklaşmasından meydana gelir. Bu yanlış bilginin muhtemel sebepleri (a) içgüdüsel olarak mantıklı oluşu, ve (b) ders kitaplarında dünyanın yörüngesindeki elips şeklinin çok abartılması; o kadar ki bu yanlış düşünce makul oluyor. Ancak maalesef bu çok yaygın bir yanlış kanı, taa ana okulundan lise fizik öğretmenlerine kadar. Aklı çok karışmış bir genç adam bana şunu demişti: “Ilk okul 3. sınıf öğretmenim mevsimlerin, dünyanın ekseninin yörünge düzlemine göre dik olmayışından kaynaklandığını; kuzey yarımkürede kışken, güney yarımkürede yaz olduğunu söylemişti. Oysa lisedeki yerbilimleri öğretmenim dünya güneşe yakınken yaz olur, uzakken kış olur dedi. Yani yazın dünyanın her yeri sıcaktır. Şimdi siz diyorsunuz ki ilk mektep öğretmenim haklıymış. Sonra, güneş lekelerindeki faaliyet artışı sebebiyle yerküremiz ısınıyor diyorlar. Eğer güneş mevsimleri yaratacak kadar etkiliyse (hangi sebeple olursa olsun), bu düşünce bana mantıklı geliyor. Ama siz diyorsunuz ki küresel ısınmanın esas sebebi insanların havaküreye ekledikleri CO2. Size nasıl güvenebilirim?”
Haklı! Eğitimindeki çelişkileri düzeltmek çok zor. Ve böyle durumlarda ben doktoralı bir iklim bilimciyim demenin ne pek bir değeri ne de etkisi oluyor. Onun için, haklı olduğunu kabul ettikten sonra bir ay boyunca dersi, öğrencilerle deneyler yapmaya ve veri ve hata payı analizlerine adadik. O dönem kıyısal jeolojiyi işleyecek vakit kalmadı ama yinede değdi bence.
[2] Ozon tabakasındaki delik ve hava kirliliği (aerosol adı verilen küçük parçacıklara varıncaya kadar) küresel ısınmaya sebep oluyor. Bir önceki gibi bu da çok yaygın ve düzeltilmesi güç bir yanlış kanı. Medya ve pek çok ilkokul ve lise öğretmeni tarafından da böyle anlatılıyor bu konu. Belki de bunun sebeplerinden biri dünyaya güneşten ışınım değil ısı ulastığının zannedilmesi. Yani ozon tabakası gezegenimizi hem güneşin zararlı ışınlarından hem de ısısından koruyor. Ama delik olduğuna göre altına fazla ısı sızıyor ve sonra alt tabakalarda hapis kalıyor bu ısı, ve böylece küresel ısınma oluyor. Biliyorum, eyvah! Bu yanlış düşünceyi düzeltmek için ben öğrencilere diyorum ki güneş tabii ki çok sıcak ama aynı zamanda da çok uzak, ve dünya ile güneş arasında büyük bir boşluk var. Dünyamıza güneş ısınımın bir kısmı kızılötesi (ısı) olarak gelse de, güneş o kadar sıcak ki ışınımının sadece az bir kısmı kızılötesi, büyük bir kısmı ise görülebilir ışık ve morötesi ışınlar halinde bize ulaşıyor. (Burada hissedilebilir ısı ile ışınım arasındaki farkı belirtmek için küçük bir düzeltme yaptık. Kusura bakmayın.)
Ancak, ozon azalması ile küresel ısınma ilişkilidir kavramı o kadar da yanlış değil. Daha önce de burada tartışıldığı gibi (Ozon Azalması ve Küresel Isınma), ilk CFC gazları ve hatta ozonun ta kendisi aslında kuvvetli birer sera gazıdır. Buna ek olarak, küresel ısınmayla oluşan stratosferdeki soğuma, orada ozon tabakasının incelişini hızlandırıyor. Ve hatta CFC’lerin yerine kullanılan gazların dahi sera gazı olma potansiyeli olduğu saptandı. AMA, ozon tabakasındaki incelme (ozon tabakasındaki delik), küresel ısınmaya sebep olmuyor.
Öğrencilerle bu tartışmamız er ya da geç havadaki aerosolleri de kapsamaya başlıyor. (Aerosols: the Last Frontier). Aerosoller her ne kadar güneşten gelen ışınları emip dağıtarak biraz ısınmaya sebep olsalar da, daha büyük etkileri soğuma doğrultusunda oluyor. Çünkü bulut oluşumunu olumlu yönde etkileyip gezegenimizin albedosunu (ışık yansıtma özelliğini) arttırıyorlar.
[3] Sera etkisi ve küresel ısınma aynı şeydir. Bu da eyvah! Belki bu yanlış olgunun kökünde çok zaman ders anlatılırken sera etkisi ile küresel ısınma konuları birlikte işleniyor. Öğrencilere açıkça belirtilmeli ki sera etkisi olmasaydı, gezegenemizin ortalama sıcaklığı 30 derece C daha az olduğu gibi, gece-gündüz arasında aşırı ısı farkı olurdu. Pek yaşam için uygun bir iklim değil. Ancak insan eliyle meydana gelen küresel ısınma, sanayi devriminden bu yana atmosferdeki sera gazlarının, özellikle CO2’nin, artmasındandır. Gezegenimizin geçmişinde buzulçağı ve buzulçağı-arası dönemlerdeki iklim değişimleri hem güneş faaliyetleri hem de sera gazlarındaki doğal artma ve azalmalar ile açıklanabiliyor elbette. Ancak son bir kaç onyıldır yaşadığımız küresel ısınma mıktarını açıklamak için muhakkak insanların havaküreye eklediği CO2’yi hesaba katmak gerek (mesela, IPCC 4th Assessment SPM ve Avery and Singer: Unstoppable Hot Air).
[4] Kuzey ve güney yarımkürede sifon çekildiğinde tuvaletteki su birbirinden farklı yönde döner. Bu aslında pedagojik olarak kullanışlı bir yanlış kanı. Tamamıyla asılsız olmasına rağmen, temelindeki esas doğru ve sadece bir ölçek meselesi bu. Bunu dedikten sonra eklemeliyim ki Koriolis etkisi öğrencileri en çok zorlayan konuların başını çekiyor. Öğrenciler genellikle sağa doğru yönelmeyle, doğuya doğru yönelmeyi biribirine karıştırıyor. Ayrıca konuya bir boyut daha ekleyip dikey yöndeki hareketi de ele alınca (tropik fırtınalar gibi), öğrenciler için bu iyice içinden çıkılamaz bir konu haline geliyor. Bu yüzden doğu-batı, saat yönünde veya aksinde gibi deyimleri hiç kullanmamaya özen gösteriyorum. Bunu, öğrencilerim dijital olamayan klasik saatleri tanımayacak kadar genç olduklarından yapmıyorum. Bu konu uzerinde durmamın sebebi uydu fotoğraflarına baktığımızda, fırtınaların kuzey yarımkürede saat yönünün tersine döndüğünü (yani sola) görmemizdir. Öğrencilerin açıkça “sola dönüş” olarak görebildiği bu olguyu inkar etmek mümkün değil. Ama açıklamamızı basit tutar, “Kuzey yarımkürede hareket eden cisimler, hareketleri doğrultusundan sağa doğru kayarlar” dersek anlaşılması biraz kolaylaşıyor. Ama yine de çok zor bir konu bu. Burada bir başka zorluk da Koriolis etkisinin bazan bir güç olarak algılanması. Henüz fizik dersi almamış öğrenciler bir güçle etkinin arasindaki farkı bilemiyorlar.
Belki de şimdi içinizden diyorsunuz ki “batı Michigan’daki bir okulda böyle olabilir, ama daha prestijli üniversitelerde muhakkak ki öğrenciler daha bilgilidir.” Ah keşke böyle olsa. Kendine Göre bir Kainat (A Private Universe) adlı video, Harvard mezunlarının mevsimlerin oluşma sebebi ve ayın evrelerinin nedeni hakkında ne kadar cahil olduğunu sergiliyor. Bu yanlış kanıların yaygınlığının sebebi, bunları öğrencilerde tespit etmenin çok zor oluşu. Öğrenciler, öğretmenin duymak istediği cevabı vermekte, ve doğru kelimeleri kullanmakta usta, ama çoğu zaman kavramları iyi anlamış değiller. Dokuz yıldır üniversitede eğitmenlik yaptıktan sonra öğrencilerimi “akıllarına geleni” söylemeye teşfik etmeyi öğrendim. Böylece, farkına varmadan bana yanlış bilgilerini belirtirler de, ben de düzeltirim diye umuyorum.
Bunu sadece Amerikalıların sorunu olarak görebilirsiniz belki çünkü son zamanlarda Amerikan eğitim sistemi çok eleştirilir oldu. Ama bu da maalesef doğru değil. Internette bir iki çabuk tarama şu sonucları verdi: Yunanlı anaokulu öğretmenleri ozon deliği ile küresel ısnmayı birbirine karıştırıyor. Yunanlı ilkokul öğretmenleri ozon deliğinin iklim değişikliğine sebep olduğunu zannediyor. Avusturalyalı üniversiteli gençler ozon deliğinin büyük bir kısmının Avusturalya uzerinde olduğuna inandıkları gibi, cilt kanserindeki artışları da buna bağlıyorlar. Israil’de orta okul öğrencileri küresel su devinimindeki belli şeyleri iyi bilselerde, bu büyük döngünün okyanusta başlayıp yeraltı suyunda bittiğini zannediyorlar. Ve bazı Türk fizik öğretmenleri ayın doğup battığına inamadığı gibi, bazı Türk öğretmen adayları ise yaz aylarında dünyanın güneşe daha yakın olduğunu zannediyorlar.
Peki ya siz? Bu küçük sınavcıkla kendinizi deneyin bakalım. 
(Sınavı yenilemek üzere şimdilik kaldırdılar galiba)
Fakat bu sınavda bazı sözcük ve anlatım hataları var sanırım. Ayrıca bazı sorular çok detaylı veya belirsiz veya Chicago-merkezli. Ama hakkında ne düşündüğünüzü bilmek isterim.
Peki bu yanlış kanılar nereden çıkıyor? Kişisel deneyimlerin ve içgüdüsel anlayısların büyük payı var bu yanlış algılamaların gelişmesinde ve okul boyunca pekişmesinde. Size çok tatlı bir kısa hikaye anlatmak istiyorum. Bir grup 4. sınıf öğrencisinin ısı konusunu öğrenirken ki maceraları. Çok bilinçli bir öğretmenleri var, ve ısı konusunu onlara bir soru yönelterek açıyor: “Bana sıcak bir şey örneği verin.” Öğretmen güneş veya ocak gibi yanıtlar beklerken küçükler palto, şapka, hırka deyiveriyorlar. Bir tanesi “halılar fena sıcak” diyor. Öğretmen “ama ben hırkanı tutunca sıcak gelmiyor” deyince “ohhh, bu bir zaman meselesi, zamanla 200 derece bile olur!” diyor öğrenciler. Kusur bulabilir misiniz? Hayatlarının dokuz kışı soğuk Massachusetts de geçmiş ve anne-babalar ve öğretmenler hep “sıcaklarını” giy yavrum demişler.
Bu örneğin gösterdiği gibi sorunun bir bölümü dilden kaynaklanıyor. “Sıcak giyim” sanki ısı yayan bir hırka izlenimi bırakıyor; “sera gazı” sanki seralar gaz içeriğinden dolayı sıcakmış intibası veriyor; güneşin doğusu-batısı sanki güneş gök yüzünde hareket ediyormuş anlamını veriyor ama aslında dönen dünya; ve “görecelik kuramı” sanki her şey görecelidir der gibi oluyor ama kuramın esası ışık hızının değişmezliğine dayanır.
4. sınıfımıza geri dönelim, bakalım öğretmenimiz bu durumla nasıl başa çıkacak. Tabii ki “Çocuklar öyle şey olur mu, sıcak olan sizsiniz” diyebilir. Bu çok zaman kazandıracak ve daha çok konu işlemeyi mümkünleştirecek bir tutum olur muhakkak. Ama bu öğretmen çok tecrübeli ve onları hiç kırmıyor. “Peki, herkes yarın evinden sıcak bir şey getirsin” diyor. Ertesi gün şapkalar, atkılar, paltolar ve hatta bir kuş tüyü uyku tulumu geliyor. Öğretmen her parçanın içine bir termometre koyuyor ve gecenin geçmesini bekliyorlar ki zamanla herşeyin içi kızışsın diye. Öğrenciler uyku tulumunun 400 derece Fahrehayt olacağından eminler. Ertesi gün pür heves gelip termometrelerine bakıyorlar. 68 derece F! (18 derece C). Hepsi çok şaşırıyor. Ama kani oldular mı? Kesinlikle hayır! Dokuz yıllık kişisel deneyimlerinden öyle hemen vazgeçerler mi? “Içlerine soğuk hava girdi” diyor bir küçük kız. “Ben arabada camları kapatıp oturunca çok terliyorum. Elbiselerimizi saklamamız lazım,” diyor. Hemen her şey çekmecelere, dolaplara dolduruluyor, her parçanın içinde termometresi var tabii. Bir gece daha geçiyor. Sabah koşa koşa gelip bir bakıyorlar, yine 68 derece. Ama bir tanesininki 69 derece. Hepsi alkışlıyor. Bari doğru yönde bir gelişme var diye herhalde. Bu böyle bir kaç gece devam ediyor. Sonunda ciddi tereddütler doğmaya başlıyor. Öğretmen diyor ki “giysilerin sıcak olduğuna inananlar bu tarafa geçsin” ve solu gösteriyor. “Kendilerinin sıcak olup giysileri ısıttığını düsüneneler sağa geçsin” diyor. Hemen hemen hepsi sağa gidiyor ama üç tane inatçı sola gidiyor. Hep inkarcılar olacaktır herhalde! Ama ne olursa olsun bu çocuklar ısıdan çok daha önemli iki şey öğrendi: bilimsel sorgulamanın esasını ve bazan gerçeklerin hissedildiği gibi olmadığını.
Peki yanlış kanılar anlayısı engelleyen unsurlar mı yoksa pedagojik aletler mi? Bu her öğretmen’in tarzı ve yapısına göre değişecektir. Ama önemli olan [1] yanlış kanıları sorgulamak, [2] yanlış olduklarını deneyler vasıtasıyla göstermek (eğer öğrenciler deneyleri düzenlerse daha da iyi), [3] bu soruların yanıtlarını ararken pek çok hipotez üretmek ve [4] onları tek tek deneylerle sınamak ve [5] ne olursa olsun hiç bir öğrencinin ortaya çıkmış bir yanlış kanıyla sınıfı terketmemesini temin etmek. Ve belki daha da etkili olacak bir yol, devlet bilim kuruluşlarının öğretmenleri eğitmek için bol miktarda para, zaman ve çaba harcamaları olacaktır.
Açıklama: Ben eğitim psikoloğu değilim. Üniversite’de profesör ve deniz/iklim bilimcisiyim. GVSU’nun Jeoloji bölümünde son derece zengin bir eğitimcilik hayatı yaşamaktayım. Ancak burada anlattığım hikayeler ve atıflar, taa Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesinde 1991 yıllında mastır yapmaya başladığım sıradan beri sürekli ve tekrarli bir şekilde duyduğum yanlış kanılara dayanmaktadır. Bu yanlış kanılar da herhangi bir tek öğrencime ait olmayıp, yayınlanmış 7000 fazla yanlış bilgi üzerine dayandırılmıştır.
5 April 2007 at 10:06 AM
Out in the public there is a tremendous need for this sort of thing. Most people I talk to think the weight of a gallon of gasoline vanishes when it is burned (how else could it float in the air as exhaust gas is their reasoning.)
5 April 2007 at 10:20 AM
I’m reminded of the story about heavy boots.
5 April 2007 at 10:27 AM
And there is all this hype about sunspot activity being the real cause behind global warming.
Except it isn’t what is being claimed.
Sunspots are a proxy for solar magnetic activity, and probably not a good one. Solar magnetic activity affects cosmic rays, that affect cloud formation, that affects global temperature.
Sunspots do have an effect on solar radiation, but not enough to explain observered climate change
5 April 2007 at 10:28 AM
Such awesome magic, to know how to teach! Manifestly impossible, and yet people do it every day. Thanks to teachers like yourself, there just might be some hope for us after all.
5 April 2007 at 10:43 AM
Just a quick note to say Gavin wouldn’t let me put my acknowledgments in there, so I would like to publically thank him for his editorial support while writing this and the entire group at RealClimate for posting my commentary.
I love the heavy boots story and I think I will use the gasoline just poofs into thin air when burned idea as a test in my class! And Daniel Goodwin, thanks so much for your kind words..
5 April 2007 at 10:54 AM
Really enjoyed the quiz, but I do agree the questions are sometimes misleading, and often nearly wrong (by failing to say “liquid water” for instance, they ignored the huge amount of water in minerals).
5 April 2007 at 11:26 AM
It’s tough, because if you say scientists (or even teachers) are infallible, you get caught out in the end, because they aren’t infallible (obviously). On the other hand, if you talk about the fallibility of science, or come across a teacher or scientist who gets something wrong, then people always assume that they are wrong.
About the quiz, I agree that some of the questions were misleading, although I only really spotted 2 that were Chicago-centric. Some of them (like the one about the steel boat) were worded in a confusing way, in that I got my answer wrong, but in reading the ‘right’ answer I realised that was what I actually meant. Curiously, I did better with the biology questions than the physics ones, even though I dropped biology after 10th grade and kept on with physics all the way through. I suppose they were more straightforward.
5 April 2007 at 11:27 AM
We know–and teach–too much theory, and too little practice–too much sitting in class, too little getting hands dirty. But ultimately “science” is organized practical ideas, and theories derived from them.
5 April 2007 at 12:51 PM
That was one of the worst K-6 no child left level quizzes I have ever seen. Just about every question had three answers on a true false basis.
5 April 2007 at 12:55 PM
Several of the questions have odd corner cases. E.g., I believe that there is animal life living by underwater smokers that does not live on plants. Also, if it turns out that there is a cosmological constant, then the energy in the universe is indeed changing as the universe expands. And technically, if dropped outside a vacuum, the heavier sphere does hit the ground first. Different wavelengths of light also travel at different speeds when not in a vacuum. etc.
There’s some awkward wording in a couple sentences, too. (I read nutrient to include CO2 and O2, for example)
5 April 2007 at 1:11 PM
What a wonderful post. The students at GVSU are getting their money’s worth in Prof Mekik’s courses.
P.S. Lack of credentials in education psych is a badge of honor in many circles.
Cheers
martin
5 April 2007 at 1:15 PM
I’m with Martin - beautifully written article and the kind of thing that needs to run in local newspapers so people learn about these things. In fact, why not shop it around?
Janis Mara
www.ecotality.com
5 April 2007 at 1:27 PM
The quiz was interesting, but some of the questions will foul up a real scientist. For example, they ask whether a metal ball hits the ground before a wooden ball of equal size and similar surface, when dropped from the same height. Of course I said it would, because the air resistance has more impact on the wooden ball (the difference is slight but not zero). But they scored me wrong.
They didn’t say “in a vacuum”!
5 April 2007 at 1:29 PM
ps. I do think that this kind of effort is very important. I did take a secondary school science teaching course in which we watched a segment of the Private Universe video, and which stressed inquiry based learning as a very valuable tool… with the drawback being that the rate of information transfer is much lower. You can’t teach _everything_ in a hands on exploratory fashion because there is just too much that needs to be covered, and for some things it is necessary to accept “the scientific consensus” and move on without thinking through it. But it is good to try and give as much intuitive understanding through a hands on approach as is practically feasible.
5 April 2007 at 1:40 PM
r.e. the quiz, the physics questions are pretty bad. Particularly egregious is the one that asks whether the heavy ball or the light ball falls faster without specifying whether they’re falling in a vacuum. Many of the others have as the correct answer that an effect does not exist, when in fact it’s just very small.
5 April 2007 at 2:45 PM
Seed germination — which particular seed?
“The Calvaria tree, on the Mauritius Islands, was totally dependent upon the dodo bird to ingest its seeds, scarify its hard coating, and excrete the seeds before germination could take place. Since the dodo bird became extinct in 1681, no reproduction of this tree has taken place. In fact, the youngest trees are 300 years old!”
http://www.jstor.org/jstor/gifcvtdir/dm000276/03050270/dm995515/99p0137x_l.1.gif?config=jstor&K=user@user_response/41pEH0QJKn4HmqNr.0/40/4kkjMAE0/303050270.dm995515.99p0137x.0/PEk51zK0Qm8cuZRoMhuUC
Seed germination and moonlight:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9658%28196410%2945%3A4%3C884%3AAPERBS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V&size=SMALL
5 April 2007 at 2:56 PM
great post. However, I have serious problems with the quiz. I found bad wording in almost every question, most of which have already been mentioned, but I also object to their assertion that people living in Hawaii don’t count (it’s in the tropics, so the sun does go overhead). Oh, yeah, and air friction is a force, not an acceleration, so their attempt to say that the different spheres were the same shape but different weights and hence would experience the same deceleration from friction is bogus, the heavy ball will hit first because its inertia can fight the air friction better as its accelerated by gravity at a constant rate– the air friction’s fighting F=ma, not just a.
However, I have a much worse problem with the quiz. I found it, not by chance, but by following a friend’s journal link that led to this post, which led to the quiz. So whatever results they get, they don’t reflect the “general population,” they represent the types of people who find and follow links to science quizzes and decide to take them. So the science of their study is inherently flawed by bad sampling, and the demographic questions at the beginning really didn’t do much to address that: I am not currently a student or a teacher, so I’m just “other,” but I’m sure I’m disproportionately represented by being the kind of person who people forward science quizzes to.
I’m also a cynic in a grumpy mood, as is probably obvious. And, I did learn some things, so it was fun, I just enjoy nitpicking.
5 April 2007 at 2:56 PM
I would consider that 11 of the 47 questions have a serious flaw either in concept or language, or both. This is very sad. These are the basic processes that operate in the universe. It should be simple to ask questions that determine whether a person understands a given process or not. This quiz says that among the test makers, the English majors do not understand good science and the scientists do not write good English.
When I was a student, on an â??open bookâ?? exercise, 36/47 was a flunk. The idea for this quiz is great. However, the execution is seriously flawed.
5 April 2007 at 3:12 PM
Schema and mental model theories in cognitive pyschology and artificial intellegence deal extensively with naive physics, astronomy, biology, etc..
Here’s a classic paper done on observational astronomy.
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/Psy394N/Woolley/9%20Mar%2021%20Reasoning%20&%20Problem%20Solving/Vosniadou%20Brewer%201992.pdf
5 April 2007 at 3:19 PM
Two anecdotes of my own plus an admission of my own ignorance:
. 1. Camping outside of Edmonton in my youth, my older brother’s friend reported that the beer was frozen but don’t worry, he’d wrapped them in a blanket to thaw them faster. I probably never felt smarter than when I explained his folly to him.
. 2. Unbelievably, a friend in university blurted out without thinking that thunder was caused by clouds banging into one another. After noticing everyone’s jaws drop he remembered where the sound came from, but what his parents told him when he was ~5 still had primacy. (I confess that I probably would think that hiccupping indicated growth for the same reason, except my remaining short made me very skeptical.)
. Admission: I still don’t understand the Coriolis effect. I draw the Pacific Basin, imagine the Earth rotating to the East, and then I can envision two big gyres (clockwise in N hemisphere and counter- in S hemisphere) forming. I think my problem here is I presuppose that rotation of the Earth is causing movement of the water, whereas the unimaginative side of my mind tells me that the Coriolis effect is only about frame of reference.
5 April 2007 at 3:39 PM
Yes, that quiz was pretty lousy in many ways.
They say that the total energy in the universe is constant. This is only (perhaps) true if you use the word “energy” as including “mass”. Which is not always done.
They also say that the total mass after a chemical reaction is exactly the same as it is before. This is just wrong. Chemical reactions can be exothermic or endothermic, and convert some mass to heat or vice versa.
There are other difficulties, as well, but these two stood out for me.
5 April 2007 at 4:02 PM
What is the density of a volume of air that contains fog droplets? How does this compare to the same volume that is entirely gaseous?
5 April 2007 at 4:20 PM
On the perception that blankets warm things–I asked my 8 year old daughter if a bowl of ice would melt faster or slower if we covered it with a dish cloth. She said faster of course, because the “blanket” would warm the ice. So we did the experiment, but she lost interest by the time the result was clear! Mostly I teach 18-22 yr olds, but they’re not a lot different.
5 April 2007 at 4:29 PM
Regarding the quiz, like Marcus I took ‘nutrients’ to include atmospheric gases. I took my time typing up my explanations which meant that I was getting tired and a bit sloppy towards the end which led me to misread some of the statements or forget to change the TRUE/FALSE selector.
Also I’d say that the electrical light bulb question is more a test of lateral thinking than understanding of scientific principles, but then I got it wrong so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Regards
Luke
5 April 2007 at 4:32 PM
Questions 19 and 20 seemed too much like trick questions. I knew the principles and explained correctly but, due to the ambiguity of the questions, got them wrong.
(Spoiler: Don’t read the next bit if you want to take the test).
#19: It is possible to light a flashlight bulb with just one wire and one battery and no other equipment.
I answered false, saying you need a second wire to connect to the other battery terminal and complete the circuit. While that isn’t absolutely necessary, I figured that was what the question was getting at–having a closed circuit. Instead, the answer says that you could just touch the other end of the battery to the bulb’s contact–which is fine, but at that point you’re getting kind of specific and not testing the principle so much as a neat shortcut to hooking up the lightbulb. Someone could answer “true” thinking that just running a single wire from one terminal of a battery to a light bulb would power it–and they would be told that they’re correct.
#20: We (humans) need light in order to see.
I answered false. We see regardless of whether there’s light or not. If there’s no light, we just see nothing. But our brain and eyes are sitll working just fine. How about rewording it to say “Humans need a light source to see something?”
5 April 2007 at 4:40 PM
http://www.ems.psu.edu/%7Efraser/Bad/BadClouds.html
5 April 2007 at 5:01 PM
Do you want the dry density or the wet density? wry smile.
Start early and teach things chronologically. I learnt my science many many years ago on my mother’s lap. We didn’t call it meteorology or climate science in those days. On the first day the sun, the brilliant shining one rose. Everything he named came into existence. He whispered Shu and the wind blew. Tefnut and the rain spittered. Geb and the ancestral earth rose above the oceans. Nut and the vault of the sky appeared above the horizon.
We abhored experiments and vacuums in those early days.
Does a wooden ball fall faster than a metal or a rock ball? The first experiment was proposed to be carried out at Karnak or Abu Simbel, I forget which; the experiment was forbidden, for reasons too lenghty to be described here. Imagine that either one did fall at a faster rate.
Conceptually tie a plumb line to connect them. Drop from a great height. Surely if the wooden ball fell more slowly than the metal one the string would become taught and retard the fall of the metal ball. Hence, both balls combined, and more massive than either separately, would fall more slowly than the metal ball. Surely if the wooden ball fell more swifly than the metal ball the string would become taught and the wooden lighter ball would increase the speed of the metal ball but not so quickly as the objects separated.
Of course we didn’t know in those days that the atoms themselves were joined by tiny “springs” but we did know logic, that all things fell at the same rate whether combined or not.
5 April 2007 at 5:50 PM
I agree the quiz was fun, and some potential areas for fixing it to become more usable/accurate:
2. Plants use oxygen. -> use is a bad word hear, especially in such a short question, as I treated it as if it had the meaning ‘consume’ (which I think is a valid reading, given limited context).
19. About the wire/battery/bulb seems more designed to be a trick question that trying to work out understanding of the science involved.
22 About the difference in velocity of different energy wave forms - presumably this needs to add ‘in a vacuum’ or similar language as has been mentioned in other comments.
A number of the others I guessed that some of the minor effects probably werent expected to be known (such as the steel and wooden ball being dropped arriving at the same time, which as we know is an oversimplification), based on that the primary audience seemed to be school age children from the introduction.
In all I think I got 2 wrong due to not knowing or applying the science, one wrong from not knowing the geography/geology (I thought Chicago was well away from any major plate boundary, guess not), 1 wrong because I didnt select the right option from the TRUE/FALSE bit despite filling in almost the same description as given more or less, 1 wrong from lack of reading comprehension, and 3 wrong because the questions mislead me despite understanding all the elements required.
Probably overall thats not too bad in terms of misleading questions (have seen much worse quizzes than that by far), but maybe you can use some of the above to improve it.
5 April 2007 at 6:24 PM
Economists have conducted studies on situations where there is asymmetric information–either the buyer or seller knows much more about the item for sale. When this becomes clear to both, a transaction becomes much less likely. I think in some ways the asymmetry of expertise between scientists and at least some laymen has a similar effect–especially if the laymen already question scientists, or even experts in general. Culture also plays a role. Anglo-Saxon culture is full of folk tales in which the yokel gets the better of his betters. The yokel is usually named Jack, and “Jack and the Bean Stalk” is one such tale. Also look at “The Marriage of Figaro” or some of Shakespeare’s comedies. In general, the less people understand about a subject, the more likely they are to fear being misled.
Ironically, this fear can be even greater if the “layman” is educated in some specialized discipline, but not, say, in climate. In this case, much of the ego of the layman may be tied up in considering himself intelligent–and not to tell him he doesn’t understand something may be considered an affront. I think it was Mark Twain who said, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
5 April 2007 at 6:45 PM
It may be piling on but I have to add my voice to the other quiz nitpickers. It was entertaining but some of those nits are pretty big. The ‘correct’ answers to questions 12, 16, and 21 are simply wrong. For 16, think about the results if the spheres are identical balloons, one filled with helium, the other with CO2. Same size, same surface, different masses. Release them in a vacuum (and yes, I know the balloons would pop in a vacuum) and they would land at the same time. Release them on earth and guess which one lands first.
As for 21, of course it makes a difference, go find a mirror and see for yourself. As you get closer you can’t see all of yourself, as you back away you can see more. But the difference isn’t due to the mirror but rather the eye’s field of view. You get the same effect with a live person as with your reflection.
Whew, I feel much better now so I’ll quit venting. Other than the quiz it was an excellent column.
Regards
5 April 2007 at 7:52 PM
“I try to dispel this misconception by explaining that though the sun is indeed quite hot, there is all this empty space between the Sun and our planet and heat canâ��t travel through a vacuum, but light can!”
That is a really bad science explanation,and fundamentally incorrect.
Solar energy is radiated into space mainly in two forms, as electromagnetic radiation energy over a wide range of wavelengths, and as kinetic and thermal energy of the solar wind plama.The former freely propagates through the interplanetary space,and only undergoes some changes and transformation in the atmospheres of the earth and of other planets. In contrast to this, the soar wind plasma energy is continually transferred from one form to another.
In extra vehicular activities the greatest problem facing astronauts is overheating.
5 April 2007 at 8:30 PM
Thursday is a long teaching day for me, so it is quite a pleasure to come out of class and find so many comments. I will try to respond to what I can.
First, many thanks to all your compliments about the post. I certainly enjoyed writing it, and I am enjoying the feedback I am getting more.
About the quizâ?¦ Some people started sort of apologizing for picking on it, but by all means pick away. It is the best quiz of its sort that I could find on line but I didnâ??t do very well on it myself, mostly because of the things that the commenters have already pointed out. The seed germination question killed me. And I didnâ??t really feel the quiz was testing grand misconceptions about science. So why did I put it in my post? I thought it would make a good conversation piece and it is one of the better ones out there that I was able to find (Iâ??m very open to suggestions about better ones). Itâ??s tough coming up with good exam questions. And by the time you perfect your exam, too many students have taken it, so you have to make a new one!
About inquiry-based hands on learning. I agree with Randolph Fritz (#8) that we should do more hands-on work with students, but I also agree with Marcus (14) in that you have to pick your battles wisely. There are only 14 weeks in a semester, and if you are in a school on a quarter system, thatâ??s just 10 weeks per quarter. There is lots of material to cover. I also find that each class has a personality of its own and have their own misconcenptions. So you canâ??t really do the same hands on activity in every class because that may be old news to some who are really confused about something else. Plus I had one class of ~20 who did not say a word to me or to each other the first 10 weeks of class. It was really freaking me out. Finally I made them give oral presentations just so they would investigate something and talk about it.
Steve Latham: The day that I actually understood the Coriolis effect in all its simplicity, I called my dissertation advisor in the middle of the night, woke him up and told him all about it. It was definitely a momentous occasion for me!
Ray Ladbury: I wish I could translate Mark Twain into Turkish as eloquently as he is in English! Thatâ??s a great quote. The problem with these misconceptions is that people have no idea they have them.
Tico89: Youâ??re absolutely right. I worry a lot about perpetuating misconceptions I have or creating new ones in the classroom. One thing I have on my side though is fatigue. I am usually so sleep deprived that students are used to my little mistakes and foibles. And Iâ??ve found that if you show you are willing to admit you were wrong or made a mistake and try to learn with them, they are very receptive and forgiving with that. Plus sometimes it gets them to â??take the leadâ?? and they never forget something they work out for themselves!
5 April 2007 at 9:11 PM
I have to echo comments 9, 10, 13, 15, … , 25, etc.
Some of the things I was going to say have already been said, but here are a couple additions:
6 Aside from the issue of chemoautotrophs, are phytoplankton and macroscopic algae like kelp considered to be plants? I thought they were considered to be in a different grouping. Then again, where do liverworts and mosses (no vascular system) fit in - I would call those plants. Kelp is multicellular, so if that’s not a plant, then maybe moss shouldn’t be a plant either - that doesn’t seem right. Need to look at phylogenies for guidance…
21. Yes, I got that wrong - because I was thinking of the mirror in my bathroom, which is not a full length mirror. The question should specify that it’s a full length mirror.
5 April 2007 at 9:51 PM
Great post - the quiz was interesting if ambiguous. Now, if someone could come up with a similar true/false quiz related strictly to climate issues:
Global ocean heat content has increased over the past three decades.
The Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets are losing mass.
Drought in the Amazon, Africa, the American West and Northern China is due to anthropogenic climate change.
Anthropogenic global warming is changing ocean circulation patterns.
Burning fossil fuels has resulted in a moister atmosphere.
Increases in hurricane intensity are closely linked to anthropogenic climate change.
Sea level will rise faster than expected due to ice sheet dynamics.
Climate models produce realistic estimations of future climate change over the next century.
Halting the use of fossil fuels will result in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 levels.
True or false? That’s the problem with true/false and multiple choice tests - sure, they’re easy to grade, but the real world is full of nuances, exceptions and conditional factors. Science education involves too much memorization of the ‘right answer’, and not enough about how to find out the answer, or how to sort out conflicting claims. Here are a few more true/false questions of importance:
Climate change will have devastating effects on human civilization under business-as-usual scenarios.
OR
Climate change will have ignorable effects on human civilization under business-as-usual scenarios.
Energy choices made today will have a large effect on future climate change.
5 April 2007 at 10:34 PM
What gets me is people who say: “Who cares? we won’t be around in 50 years or so, after we die, so who cares?”
and Diesel with its Global Warming Ready adverts?
What’s up with that?
5 April 2007 at 11:09 PM
Questions #3, #5, #32 are just clearly so wrong.
#3 - There are many examples of seeds (like the Dodo one given above) that need “special” conditions - like exposure to digestive chemicals, exposure to light, etc.
#5 - Animals that feed on animals that feed on bacteria don’t need plants. Not many. But certainly counterexamples exist.
#32 - So obviously wrong its embarrassing.
#23 That is actually an open question.
#24 That kind of depends on your definition of orderly. If the universe expands forever, heat “death” is the result (seems boringly cold and orderly to me). If the universe contracts to a singularity, what could be less chaotic than THAT?
#35 is wrong. When since is air pressure (density) purely a function of humidity? Yeah - they are related. But there’s that temperature thing. Cold, humid day in October can have higher pressure than hot, dry day in July. Wind movements can certainly cause pressure anomalies etc. Then there’s the baseball. Dry and humid baseballs are NOT the same. In humid conditions, a baseball absorbs water and becomes heavier, bigger and mushier. A dry baseball is smaller, harder and lighter. Hence dry baseball can go further. In fact, air conditioned baseballs used in humid stadium, go YARD!
5 April 2007 at 11:24 PM
i would also like to comment on the quiz. question 32 ignores binding energy which is a component of the mass of a compound.
5 April 2007 at 11:52 PM
Great post.Many of the questions were not well-written for anyone with a science background. However, I have problems with questions 10 & 25.
Question 10: There is still an ongoing debate over whether a virus is a living organism. A virus does not have a cellular structure.
Question 25: 2 objects of different temperature in a vacuum do not transfer heat energy from the warmer object to the cooler object until they reach equilibrium. Reference the Sun and the planets.
21 was also a field of view thing for me. Other than that, the other mistakes were in reading.
5 April 2007 at 11:58 PM
Ike - I think the answer to every one of your questions is: unknown.
6 April 2007 at 3:30 AM
Book: “Kicking the Carbon Habit” by William Sweet
There is a factual error on page 185 of this book. He says that there were 2 nuclear explosions in the Chernobyl accident. There was no NUCLEAR explosion in the Chernobyl reactor because that is physically impossible. Chernobyl was a DIRTY bomb. Chernobyl was NOT a NUCLEAR bomb. He confused nuclear with dirty. This is probably a popular confusion. Most people probably made the same error. The big mistakes were saying the scientists and engineers were wrong and not asking the scientists and engineers for explanations. There was a CARBON fire or possibly a carbon powder explosion. A nuclear explosion would have levelled the complex and quite a lot more. The Chernobyl reactor was carbon moderated. Carbon is used to slow down the neutrons so that they are easily absorbed. Western-built reactors have always been water-moderated except for the very first reactor ever built. Coal is carbon. Uranium is pyrophoric, which means that uranium burns [oxidizes] at the slightest excuse. A uranium fire would ignite the carbon. If the carbon was powdered it would explode like dust in a grain elevator, but I don’t know whether the carbon was powdered or in big lumps.
Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb:
Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is nothing similar about them except that they both need fissile materials. But they need DIFFERENT fissile materials and they use them very differently.
A nuclear bomb “compresses” pure or nearly pure fissile material into a small space. The fissile material is either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium. If it is uranium, it is at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less uranium 238. The bomb must compress the uranium or plutonium because a bomb has no moderator to slow the neutrons down. These fissile materials are metals and very difficult to compress. Because they are difficult to compress, a high explosive [high speed explosive] is required to compress them. Pieces of the fissile material have to slam into each other hard for the nuclear reactions to take place. In plutonium bombs, the high speed explosive has to be precisely shaped and has to explode from all sides simultaneously to make the bomb work. There is no way an accident could get the explosive to explode correctly. In gun-type bombs, there must be a gun barrel to direct one piece of uranium into the other piece of uranium at high speed and with precise direction. There is nothing precise about an accident.
A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power generation, does not have any PURE fissile material. The fuel may be 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238. A mixture of 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238 cannot be made to explode in the nuclear way no matter how hard you try. A small amount of plutonium mixed in with the uranium cannot change this. Reactor fuel still cannot be made to explode like a nuclear bomb no matter how hard you try. There has never been a nuclear explosion in a reactor and there never will be. [Uranium and plutonium are flammable, but a fire isn’t an explosion.] The fuel in a reactor is further diluted by the moderator, which is carbon at Chernobyl or water everywhere outside the Soviet Union. We use water as the moderator because water can’t burn. The fuel in a reactor is further diluted by being divided and sealed into many small steel capsules. The fuel in a reactor is further diluted by the need for coolant to flow around the capsules and through the core so that heat can be transported to a place where heat energy can be converted to electrical energy. A reactor does not contain any high speed chemical explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not have any intentional explosive materials at all.
As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no possible way that a reactor could ever explode like a nuclear bomb. Reactors and bombs are very different. Reactors and bombs are really not even related to each other.
But just ask the average person about this.
6 April 2007 at 3:41 AM
We burn all that coal to make electricity because most people think nuclear power is dangerous. They have never heard of background radiation. They don’t know that ancient mummies are dated by radioactive carbon. They don’t know that coal-fired power plants put enough uranium into the air to fully fuel our nuclear power plants. They don’t know that coal also contains arsenic and thorium and every natural heavy metal poison.
The question is, how are you going to cram enough knowledge into unwilling heads by the end of 12th grade to make good citizens? I think we should start by requiring ALL college students, even English, drama, sculpture and elementary teaching majors, to take the “Engineering and Science Core Cirriculum”.
6 April 2007 at 6:19 AM
I’m a grown man, self employed and so on. I dropped out of 8th grade, and obviously haven’t done too bad for myself.. But taking that test and having to explain how I think things work, I realized my knowledge of how nature is put together, is not knowledge at all, but rather a gaping black abyss.
I read RC with some regularity, and even understand bits of it when the weather’s right and the sun’s in my back. And one of the things I’ve noticed, is that a lot of terribly knowledgeable science nerds frequent this place. So what better crowd of random strangers to ask.
How do I learn? Where do I start? Between job, family and my shocking lack of education, going back to school isn’t really a possibility, I think. But what books did you lot chew through in school? Which do you throw at your students?
Please take a moment to help me out if you can. The curiosity is killing me. I’ll bookmark this and check back regularly the next week or two. Sincere thanks in advance. I hope you never have to confront your ignorance like I just have. It’s ghastly.
6 April 2007 at 7:02 AM
I make it that the quiz has 10 wrong answers. I only ‘missed’ nine because I purposely put down the wrong (but obviously desired) answer once.
Aside from the others mentioned, sexually produced offspring can be identical to their parents. If the parents have exactly the same DNA then, barring mutations, the offspring will have exactly the same genes as both parents. Note that while mammals of different sexes cannot have identical genes, this is not true of all animals. Of course, even mammals can have exactly the same genes as one of their parents, since there is a chance as long as one parent has a match for one of each of the other’s chromosome pairs.
6 April 2007 at 7:05 AM
heat can’t travel through a vacuum
Everything above zero Kelvin radiates energy (i.e. heat). It travels pretty well through a vacuum, and depending on the frequency of the radiation, through other materials too. There is no fundamental difference between light from the sun at visible frequencies, big-bang leftover radiation at infra-red, or even x-ray radiation from other processes. If the radiation is absorbed, the temperature of the absorber rises a little - in a steady state scenario it rises until the energy radiated is the same as energy absorbed. NB this does NOT mean the temperatures have to be equal. Besides passing through or being absorbed there is another possibility - the radiation can be reflected
[Response: Thanks. We updated the text to reflect reality. Another linguistic confusion I think…. - gavin]
6 April 2007 at 7:27 AM
Kaoten: Even scientists at the pinnacle of their careers with degrees from prestigious schools are confronted with their ghastly ignorance about something every day. The trick is in recognizing this; and the arrogance is in ignoring it. So, some of my favorite books are Longitude by Dava Sobel, Our Enchanted Affair with El Nino by George Philander, and if you want a solid introductory text book about climate science I would recommend William Ruddiman’s Earth’s Climate Past and Future. Also if you just want to focus on global warming give David Archer’s Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast a read..
Ike Solem: that’s a mean quiz!!
6 April 2007 at 8:00 AM
Thank you for this fine post. It brought to mind the late Neil Postman’s writing on language and stupidity. An example: he relates the story of a student who, in an unusually warm classroom, asks what the temperature is. Upon being told, the student exclaims, “No wonder it’s hot in here!”
6 April 2007 at 8:14 AM
and if you want some interesting stuff about our sun, dip into
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm
Kinda makes you think..
6 April 2007 at 8:32 AM
Kaoten, I applaud your interest. A warning: thirst for learning is an incurable disease. Once you start, you’ll never be sated. As near as I can tell, though, it is a disease that only brings benefits.
The first question I have for you is: What is it you want to learn? You will have much more success getting through the inevitable dry parts of any subject if you know you’ll be rewarded with understanding something that interests you down the road.
As far a a program of general learning, I don’t think you can go wrong with starting with language and math. WRT the former, the book “Eats shoots and Leaves,” is a delightful book. I’m not sure I know of a really good, fun math book. Maybe Polya’s “How to solve it” comes closest. Anyone else have suggestions?
Here’s a chance to plug one of my favorite books of all time: “The Flying Circus of Physics,” by Jearl Walker. Short little blurbs about all of the amazing little miracles of our daily world. You will never look at the sky, ocean or a cup of tea the same way again after reading this book. BUY IT NOW! is my strongest suggestion. Good luck and feel free to contact me offline as your program progresses.
6 April 2007 at 8:32 AM
Concerning stuff to read: as a teen I got a copy of VW Maintenance for Compleat Idiots. What a godsend. I never got training in car maintenance but even I could do most of the work on my car with such a book to help. Similar things are also the best intro read in many other subjects as well. The cartoon series XXX For Beginners comes to mind. For physics there is The Cartoon Guide to Physics by Larry Gonick. It is about really basic physics. No theory of everything jazz, just the basics like classical mechanics and thermodynamics and the like that affect things most people come in contact with. It conveys the ideas through cartoon stories which are designed to help you understand things. They’re also entertaining but are done without the wow gee whiz factor you get in those theory of everything books whose effect is mainly to mystify, not to teach. I can really recommend this one for people who want the basics, about everyday things but also done in a conceptual manner, not through factoids.
ciao,
Bruce
6 April 2007 at 8:36 AM
Re: The Quiz. Its interesting that the Quiz is a very nice example of all the things Figen Mekik is trying to address, and RC too. Imprecise language about mirrors, genetics, mass and energy lead us into a mire. If its ‘only’ intended to be ‘popular science’ then at least get the questions right; if is supposed to be real science, then we need to see that the science behind the answers is right too.
The quiz measures something, but I think that the only useful knowledge we can learn from it is about the quiz master. The quiz is flawed in its sampling methodology, and at least 20 percent of the question-answers are wrong. Any data arising from the quiz about the intelect of the quiz participants its useless.
6 April 2007 at 9:31 AM
I’m aware of studies that show the ozone-GW confusion…and people thinking all they have to do is stop using hairspray (which no longer has CFCs in it anyway) to halt GW. In fact I gleaned that from a study I did on General Social Survey data around mid-90s.
One of the problems mentioned is that these 2 problems happened close in time to each other (& they both involve the atmosphere). You have to understand that most people don’t pay avid attention to the news, and the newsperson may even get things wrong. So they hear snippets as they walk past TV stores or from someone’s radio on the bus. And they use their existing world view to cobble together something that makes sense to them.
And, shame shame, they really should have paid more attention during high school science class, so they’d have a better foundation on which to build.
And unfortunately the height of respect for science was in the 50s & 60s (I remember listening to Sputnik’s dog’s heartbeat for an hour in my 6th grade class — science was king, I was going to be a scientist), and now respect for science has waned, with attacks from the religious right, the post-modern academic elites, and industry getting its act together after Rachel Carson’s SILENT SPRING broadside. And all the “science” being done by creationists and industry wonks (some of whom are even imprisoned for out&out fraudulent science) has only fed into a general disrespect or at least enlightened skepticism about science. Like, who’s to believe the latest Chocolate Industry study that chocolate is good for the heart (or those “studies” they allude to in TV commercials). No one likes to be taken for a dupe.
Then there is the way statistics are presented. So, if I say “there’s a 20% chance you will be in a car accident over the next 10 years driving around Chicago,” that sounds a whole lot worse than, “there’s an 80% chance you will not be in a car accident over the next 10 years driving around Chicago.” And unfortunately the way hypothesis testing is set up focusing on the null hypothesis….well, it makes GW & other environ problems seem not so bad. Afterall, there’s a five percent chance nothing’s happening. We’ll take our chances.
6 April 2007 at 9:36 AM
Greg makes an important point, anykid with half a brain after taking all the “high stakes” multiple choice tests learns that she is smarter than whoever wrote the test and how to game the system. With certain teachers, you learn that it is a lot easier to give the right wrong answer than to try and engage in a dialog, kid version:god you’re stupid teach, teacher: you flunk and I want to see your parents.
Lots of bright and normal kids have learned that that the way to an A is to find the answer that the test wants, which is not the right answer.
The net result is you build a society of the collegekids who Figen and I teach.
6 April 2007 at 9:47 AM
Kaotin, I put three climate on-line texts on my blog roll, and a number of tree killer text books can be found in a post There are some reviews in the comments, especially with respect to difficulty. I have to get back to complete the circle by listing atmospheric chemistry and biogeochemistry books.
6 April 2007 at 9:58 AM
This is a comment for Kaoten regarding number 42. Go back to school. I always wanted a science degree and I started back to school in my 40s, while working full time at a physically difficult job. When I was on the night shift I took my 10 minute breaks and studied my calculus. I had to start my math series way back at intermediate algebra because I lacked a good high school education. It was very difficult, but by the age of 55 I had a masters degree in Geology with a good solid foundation in math, chemistry, and physics. It has changed my life and I did this for myself so that I could better understand our world and the changes that we have made to it.
Elizabeth
6 April 2007 at 10:20 AM
>There was no NUCLEAR explosion in the Chernobyl reactor …
However, a nuclear reactor has far more and varied radioactive material in it than a nuclear bomb, and even a very dirty ground or underwater nuclear bomb explosion puts far less radiation into the environment than failure of containment on a reactor that’s been operating for a while and is full of transuranics.
Look how hard they’re working to keep the Chernobyl-type reactors operating, eh?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=cache:RyAOPQEJFsgJ:typhoon.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/icnc2003/Proceeding/paper/2.18_106.pdf+chernobyl+fast+critical
unfortunately the original PDF isn’t showing up, this gets you the HTML version
6 April 2007 at 11:24 AM
Don’t know if this comment got through last time — I got a data access error, which seems to happen a lot with this site — so I’ll try again. Apologies if this is a double post.
Sai Greisch, you left out a crucial component of nuclear bombs, the things that make it possible for them to explode when reactors do not. (Reactors do explode sometimes, but it’s usually a steam explosion, not a nuclear one.) Since this blog gets a lot of viewing, I won’t say what the missing component is, but the other physicists here will know what I mean.
6 April 2007 at 11:27 AM
[[most people think nuclear power is dangerous. They have never heard of background radiation. They don’t know that ancient mummies are dated by radioactive carbon.]]
I think nuclear power is dangerous, and I know about background radiation (about 120 millirads per year in most places, isn’t it?), and I even know about carbon-14 dating. I’m going on the fact that there have been a couple of dozen nuclear reactors accidents with fatalities involved, and, more importantly, the fact that a really big accident could kill a really big number of people.
6 April 2007 at 11:32 AM
[[How do I learn? Where do I start? Between job, family and my shocking lack of education, going back to school isn’t really a possibility, I think. But what books did you lot chew through in school? Which do you throw at your students?]]
Isaac Asimov’s collections of short essays were very valuable to me. For specific sciences, try to find used copies of high school and college introductory textbooks. And study as much math as you possible can. You should at least have a good grasp of algebra and a little trigonometry to follow what’s in most textbooks. (To actually do professional scientific work you’ll usually need to add calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, vector analysis and vector calculus, and statistics, and for some fields, especially physics, tensor and spinor calculus. No, I don’t know all that stuff either.
)
6 April 2007 at 11:40 AM
Eli, you make a good point. In one of my novels, where a teenage alien girl is hosting a teenage Earth girl for a year (alien year, different length), host girl, Throsu, is studying astronomy and recites a list of so many satellites of each of her system’s planets. Earth girl, Joanna, replies that Earth scientists have surveyed the outer system and report a much higher number of moons for the outer planets. Throsu replies, “The right answer is the answer the teacher wants to hear.”
6 April 2007 at 11:49 AM
Kaoten: visit a local Community College or University and go to their bookstore. Freshman texts on subjects you like will help. At my Community College, there are also reference librarians who can help you find books, and even better, may also help you put together a reading list. Better still, enroll in a community college. As a former Professor at a local community college for 15 years, I had many students older than 30, some in their 50s coming back because their job was eliminated. Community colleges are also becoming more and more oriented to students like you, providing services and courses under an open admissions policy. At my college, about half the students were working full time, taking classes at night. And you can always audit a class.
Good luck to you. I admire your spirit.
6 April 2007 at 12:08 PM
Re #52 (Eli) I’ve experienced test-gaming as a student and now as an educator, agree it’s a concern. An upside may be the development of critical thinking skills that become useful later in life as students go on to face others in positions of higher, or at least different power, e.g. bosses, politicians, judges, lawyers, and maybe even in everyday situations like dealing with folks in sales and customer service.
As a middle school teacher, I’ll take testing problems over some of the other educational/societal challenges I face daily in the classroom, e.g. inadequate parent support, student obsession with pop culture and entertainment electronics, and inappropriate funding to name a few. All of these issues, I think, contribute to present and probable future state of society with its concerning lack of intellect.
Figen and RC, thanks - I enjoyed the commentary and quiz, scored 83% ‘correct’, but the grade doesn’t really matter. I learned some things (from the response comments as well), and at a very reasonable cost!
6 April 2007 at 12:27 PM
Re #57: […here have been a couple of dozen nuclear reactors accidents with fatalities involved…]
Against how many fossil fuel and hydropower accidents with fatalities? Thousands?
[…a really big accident could kill a really big number of people.]
And really big fossil fuel & hydropower accidents could kill really big numbers of people, too. Have done, in fact, which is more than can be said of nuclear power.
6 April 2007 at 12:29 PM
About heat can’t travel through a vacuum… My apologies indeed. I stand corrected by your comments and I got help from Raypierre in putting together this response. I was thinking of the heat insulating properties of a thermos. But heat can indeed travel through space as infrared radiation. It’s just that the Sun is so hot (about 6000K for the photosphere), and that at those temperatures the infrared is a small proportion of the Solar output. Nonetheless, solar near-IR does reach the Earth and other planets in sufficient quantities that it needs to be taken into account in climate models, — and is.
6 April 2007 at 12:59 PM
RE “The greenhouse effect and global warming are the same thing” being a problem, I think we can overdo scientific correctness.
Of course GW can be caused by other forcings, aside from GHGs (which the contrarians so love to point out). However, for the common layperson I think it is OK to interchange these terms, hopefully with the understanding that there is a natural greenhouse effect that makes life on earth possible, but that we are now in a human-enhanced greenhouse effect situation.
If I recall, I first learned about GW from the media as “the greenhouse effect,” and this term has held for a long time for people who don’t pay much attention to the media. Now the avant-garde is on to “climate change” (doesn’t it always change and is change always bad, some ask). When I heard CC, I thought, they’re trying to water down this big problem.
There is really no good term for the current situation. Words fail us. Global warming, yeah, less snow plowing in winter, or maybe we don’t have to go to the tropics for vacation, the tropics will come to us. Warming to warm our hearts & spirits. Warm & fuzzy feelings.
And greenhouse effect has the lush feeling of greenhouses growing orchids — paradise in a glass enclosure.
Then there’s “an inconvenient truth,” but to me it’s more like a “moral failing.” Science just can’t quite get at the whole of GW.
6 April 2007 at 1:33 PM
I tried to post this comment yesterday - thanks, Figen - your summary brought me back to my days of teaching Introduction to the Atmosphere for undergraduates and high school teachers! You’ve done a great job of putting words to common experiences. (I once had a student who emailed me a picture of an flushing toilet in Australia to help dispel the toilet flushing myth.)
The quiz you posted reminds me of why I loathe giving T/F and multiple choice exams to students. The sad truth is that these ARE the types of exams (and test bank questions) that are used to test knowledge. What else can you do with a class of 200-300 students? What I appreciated about the quiz was the explanation line (if it is used).
6 April 2007 at 1:53 PM
Kaoten, almost forgot. Have you heard of the Open Courseware project at MIT. They are putting on line all of the course ware for most of the courses they teach there. Quality varies, but you can find some great resources. Check it out:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
6 April 2007 at 2:17 PM
James (and other pro-nuclear advocates),
You need to face the fact that you have an uphill battle ahead of you to get nuclear power to be widely adopted in the United States. You’re correct that coal and hydoelectric plants have killed more people than nuclear. So what? Mentioning nuclear power causes a visceral reaction in many people (voters) which makes this an emotional issue, not an intellectual one. A single National Geographic Magazine article on the ghosttowns around Chernobyl is more persuasive than a whole binder of facts and statistics.
The nuclear power industry has itself to blame for much of its poor public image. For example, it lobbied for caps on liability for damages, while at the same time promoting itself as a safe energy source. That’s pretty hypocritical in the opinion of many people. Or how about promoting itself as a cost effective power source while making the taxpayers pick up the tab for perpetual waste storage. If the nuclear power industry wants better acceptance, it needs to earn it. Removing the cap on liability (the reactors are safe, aren’t they?) and internalizing the lifecycle costs (from the first bucket of uranium ore on) would be a start. If they are not willing to do that they should quit whining. I, for one, will be too busy installing PV arrays to listen.
Renewable Regards,
6 April 2007 at 3:01 PM
Re # 42 Kaoten: I’ll put in a plug for ‘Reading the Mind of God,” by James Trefil (http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Mind-God-Principle-Universality/dp/0684187965). Trefil (a physicist at George Mason Univ) is an oustanding writer of science for the general public. I’ve enjoyed several of his books (e.g., A Scientist at the Seashore). In “Reading the Mind of God,” he explains how astronomers and cosmologists study the origin of the universe and our solar system (while he examins the Principle of Universality).
Another book I found very useful at shoring up my knowledge of physics is “Clouds in a Glass of Beer: Simple Experiments in Atmospheric Physics,” by Craig E. Bohren (http://www.amazon.com/Clouds-Glass-Beer-Experiments-Atmospheric/dp/0486417387). Bohren (a physicist who taught meteorology at Penn State) is still a bit skeptical of AGW, I think. Nevertheless, he does a very good job of explaining common atmospheric phenomena in this book.
RE The topic of this thread: Another popular misconception (if not total ignorance) among college science majors is why high tides (in the ocean) occur simultaneously on opposite sides of the earth.
6 April 2007 at 3:33 PM
But heat can indeed travel through space as infrared radiation
There’s nothing special about ‘infrared’ radiation in this respect. Heat can be transmitted as radiation with a thermal spectrum, which in some temperature ranges peaks in the infrared. In other temperature ranges, it peaks at longer or shorter wavelengths (microwaves, visible, X-rays, etc.)
6 April 2007 at 3:37 PM
We burn all that coal to make electricity because most people think nuclear power is dangerous.
No, we do it because it is cheaper to burn the coal, because the cost of the CO2 emissions are not included. Utilities in the US are often required to use the lowest cost sources of power.
6 April 2007 at 3:39 PM
Re #42: Kaoten — If your interest is primarily climate, I strongly urge you to read
W.F. Ruddiman
Earth’s Climate: Past and Future
W.H. Freeman, 2001
This is a fine beginner’s book, IMO…
6 April 2007 at 4:06 PM
Re #58 Isaac Asimov’s essays (Barton)
While I am already familiar with most of the math subjects you mention, I am a fan of Asimov’s and would like to read more of his scientific work. Which essays are you referring to?
6 April 2007 at 4:35 PM
Re #58 Isaac’s Asimov’s scientific essays (Barton)
Should have done my homework first. Complete list of all 450+ books with reviews to be found at: http://homepage.mac.com/jhjenkins/Asimov/Asimov.html
6 April 2007 at 4:55 PM
Re #67: [You need to face the fact that you have an uphill battle ahead of you…]
The same could - still can - be said about trying to convince the public of that AGW is a real problem. Or indeed, to challenge any of the myths that have been mentioned in this thread. Should we then just give up, and accept popular belief as reality?
As to your arguments re liability and costs, I have no problem with any of that, just as long as all forms of energy generation are placed on an equal footing. The government foots the bill for the damages that accidents to hydroelectric dams might cause - why should nuclear be treated differently? Fossil fuel plants get to dump their waste into the atmosphere, leaving the public to deal with the problems and foot the bills. Why should nuclear have to meet a different standard, and then try to compete on costs?
6 April 2007 at 5:02 PM
In #57, Barton Paul Levenson wrote:
“I think nuclear power is dangerous, and I know about background radiation (about 120 millirads per year in most places, isn’t it?), and I even know about carbon-14 dating. I’m going on the fact that there have been a couple of dozen nuclear reactors accidents with fatalities involved, and, more importantly, the fact that a really big accident could kill a really big number of people.”
Like Ronald Reagan, it’s not so much the things that Levenson doesn’ know that are the problem, it’s the things he does know that aren’t so.
Those interested can visit Wikipedia’s rather detailed description of background radiation, at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation, and its rather detailed listing of civilian nuclear power accidents, at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents, and its list of military nuclear accidents, at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents to discover reality.
Reality is that average background radiation worldwide is on the order of 360 millirem. Reality is also that there have been two civilian nuclear reactor accidents with fatalities, the RA-2 criticality accident in Buenos Aires in 1983, which killed one reactor operator, and the Chernobyl accident, which Wikipedia says killed 50 plant staff and emergency responders and was responsible for 9 thyroid cancer deaths. An accident at the SL-1 military reactor in Idaho in 1961 killed three operators (there is some evidence that it was a murder-suicide).
The two accident lists include a wide variety of other civilian and military accidents (mostly military), particularly US Air Force Broken Arrow incidents and a stunning array of Soviet navy nuclear submarine accidents.
A sizeable (and highly variable) fraction of the background radiation is due to radon, part of the decay chain of uranium and thorium in the ground. Curiously, the importance of radon as a contributor to background radiation was first discovered when a nuclear plant worker in Eastern Pennsylvania (the Reading Prong of high-uranium concentration rocks and soil) set off a plant radiation monitor when he was arriving for work one morning. He lived in a house with particularly high radon levels.
The “really big accident” that Levenson writes about is hypothetical, in the sense that it has never happened, but might some day. Its “really big” consequences are also hypothetical, with predictions depending on assertions about the relationship between radiation dose and cancer induction, extrapolated down to doses far lower than anything we have actual data for.
As another writer noted, there have been “really big” accidents with “really big” consequences in the fossil fuel industry and associated with hydropower facilities: 225,000 dead in the 1975 failure of 63 dams in Henan province in China, 2000 dead downstream from Vaiont Dam in Italy, hundreds dead in each of at least a dozen gas/LPG/natural_gas explosions and fires around the world (see any World Almanac). These are not hypothetical, they have really happened and continue to happen, with a frequency of several per decade.
Best regards.
6 April 2007 at 5:05 PM
I am confused about the discussion about hurricanes and Coriolis force. You write, “from satellite images hurricanes look like they are rotating counter-clockwise. Really can’t argue with what the students are seeing for themselves.” And yet, it is true that hurricanes (in the northern hemisphere, which is where that word is used) do in fact rotate counter-clockwise. Why would you suggest that reality is different from what students see for themselves, if both point to the same direction of rotation?
http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/centrifugal/figures345.html
6 April 2007 at 5:27 PM
Kaoten, as far as general education resouces, you may find this site useful,
http://stingyscholar.blogspot.com/
6 April 2007 at 5:30 PM
Now, if I could just learn to spell! That would be *resources.
6 April 2007 at 6:09 PM
“The “really big accident” that Levenson writes about is hypothetical, in the sense that it has never happened, but might some day. Its “really big” consequences are also hypothetical, with predictions depending on assertions about the relationship between radiation dose and cancer induction, extrapolated down to doses far lower than anything we have actual data for.”
Such an accident could provide valuable hard data to help assess the effects of future accidents. I’d personally prefer to do everything possible to keep this in the hypothetical realm, however.
6 April 2007 at 6:12 PM
Some responses:
Chuck Booth: Yes tides makes the top of my list also in the “difficult to explain and comprehend” category.
Tavita (#19): Thanks for the paper. I downloaded it and am in the process of reading it. It is lengthy!! But I’m looking forward to it.
Hal: The confusion lies in saying things rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere without taking into account movement in the vertical direction. Subtropical gyres (major subtropical surface ocean currents) do rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere when you look at the world from space. But this is because on a broad scale subtropical gyres are downwelling zones. So if in the subtropical northern hemisphere you were to take a picture of a hurricane from space, the rotartion would look counter-clockwise seemingly in defiance of the Coriolis effect. BUT in reality Coriolis tells us moving objects will be deflected to the RIGHT in the northern hemisphere within the frame of reference of their movement direction. Hurricanes are low pressure zones, so in essence air is moving up. So you would have to look at the hurricane from the land or sea surface and not from space to determine its direction of rotation. And if you looked up from the surface at the hurricane, it would be rotating clockwise (deflection to the right). Hope that makes sense.
Paul Dietz: By heat I mean infrared (long wavelength) radiation. So we get all kinds of radiation from the sun, but what I understood from what Raypierre told me is that because the sun is so hot, most of the radiation it emits is in the shorter wavelength range, though it does emit infrared also. This is all within the context of “the ozone hole does not leak solar heat” idea which is the misconception under discussion in relation to this topic
6 April 2007 at 7:08 PM
Jim, one difference between advocacy and science is that to do science, you are responsible for fairly presenting all the information, while as an advocate you may honorably present only that most favorable to your desired result.
Would you add this information to your file, if you’re representing what you know as being science?
“Table 2 shows the change in reported cancer cases before and following the Chernobyl accident. The
post-accident incidence per million rose by as much as a factor of 200 from pre-1986 levels with an
apparent latent period as short as 4 to 5 years. Tronko et al. (1999) report 577 cases of thyroid cancer in
Ukraine between 1986 and 1997. Buglova et al. (1996) report that the incidence in boys is 50% higher
than in girls. Goldman (1997) predicts that the ultimate number of cases will reach between 3000 and
6000. The normal incidence of child thyroid cancer is low, typically less than 0.5 cases per million.”
and
“Before the 1986 accident, natural background radiation levels in Slavutych were 0.009 to
0.012 mrem/h (78 to 105 mrem/yr). Measurements made by the Radioecology Department of the
Chernobyl nuclear plant in 1999 show that approximately 14.8 mrem/yr could be attributed to accident-
related contamination. Background radiation levels in the wooded areas surrounding Slavutych are on the
order of 0.03 mrem/h. ”
Original document here:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/15001501-53Vm14/native/15001501.pdf
Note the title at the top of page 1 is unrelated to this content, which begins at page 4.
HTML here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:A0o92AolbjYJ:www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/15001501-53Vm14/native/15001501.pdf+%2Bchernobyl+%2B%22exclusion+zone%22+%2Bchange+%2Btransuranics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a
It’s basically an optimistic report.
6 April 2007 at 7:49 PM
Re #42 Koeten:
Another book you might want to read is “Great Ideas in Physics,” by Alan Lightman (McGraw Hill). Lightman, a physicist turned professor of humanities at MIT) discusses fundamental concepts of physics (first and second laws of thermodynamics, theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics) from a conceptual and historical point of view, keeping the mathematics to a bare minimum.
By browsing in used book stores (esp. in a college town), you can find old textbooks on virtually any subject that interests you. However, the problem with reading an introductory college text on, say biology, is that it has so much information it can be overwhelming; that is where a formal course can be useful, as the instructor can help guide you through the most important topics. But, when it comes to science, perhaps more valuable than any book, or college course, is just observing the world around you: If you are not already doing so, go for walks outdoors, at different times of day, in the woods, along the beach, in the mountains, along a stream, and just observe nature; or set up a bird feeder in your back yard and start watching the birds that show up; plant a garden and start thinking about the lives of plants, and what is going on in the soil; spend a couple of hundred dollars on a decent telescope (or a good pair of binoculars) and start watching the night sky (and listening to the sounds of nocturnal animals, while you are at it). And ask questions about what you are seeing, and hearing. Then, start looking for answers… you’ll probably find that simple questions usually lead to more questions, and you’ll end up digging deeper and deeper into subjects you never thought about before. That is how scientists learn - they tend to be very curious, and ask a lot of questions. But, unlike most people, they need answers, and they get frustrated when they can’t find answers, or when they find answers that don’t seem to make sense. So, they start looking for answers on their own, and they often end up somewhere very different from where they thought they were headed. That is basically how the history of science progressed over several hundred years, and it is how the research careers of many, perhaps most, scientists progressed.
While I agree with others that it is never too late to enroll in college, you don’t need a college degree, or even a college course, to be curious and to start finding answers to your questions on your own (esp. with the resources now available on the internet).
6 April 2007 at 8:16 PM
#76 Perhaps the point is that if you look at the hurricane from our side, looking up, instead of from the astronaut’s side, looking down, the (northern hemisphere) rotation is clockwise.
A feel for the nature and scale of the Coriolis “force” can be had by considering a Foucault pendulum. The huge pendulum’s swing rotates slowly in our frame of reference because of the Coriolis effect. A moment’s thought will lead to the obvious conclusion that the effect is going to be far to slow and slight to influence a toilet flush or bath plug vortex…
6 April 2007 at 8:43 PM
First of all, thank you so much, all of you. Your encouragements, help and brilliant attitude is heartwarming and deeply appreciated.
I’ll be spending the evening (and the rest of the weekend) examining the suggestions you’ve made so far, including trying to figure out how feasible it is to sign up for classes. Hopefully it’ll give me some idea of how to address my ignorance Monday, as I’ve already arranged to take the morning off.
As I said, I’m enormously grateful for your support, but I think I need to make a couple of things clear, and I’d like to comment on a few of your suggestions as well.
Obviously I’m looking to learn more than simply how the world I live in works. I want to know why. It’s the same curiosity that got me to start a business. I never had a problem understanding what my old bosses told me, but the why was rarely obvious to me. Now I understand, earn less, and my hair’s gone gray.
The big difference between the two, from my perspective, is that I at least knew the trade, but don’t in this case. Obviously I’ve had to learn quite a few things no 8th grader can be expected to know, but I think I need to make it perfectly clear that it’s at most things that will be of incidental use in trying to understand how nature’s put together. So at the chance of sounding like a complete tosser, I think it’s best if you attempt to make your suggestions relevant to an 8th grader. Like I said, I’d like to understand why things work like they do, not just that ‘they do because they do’. If nothing else, it’d be awfully nice to be able to explain to the kid we’re having, why clouds don’t fall down.
“Even scientists at the pinnacle of their careers with degrees from prestigious schools are confronted with their ghastly ignorance about something every day.” - Figen Mekik
This may sound a bit selfindulgent, but I can’t shake the feeling the scales involved are different by an order of several magnitudes. It’s the ’special knowledge’ versus ‘general knowledge’ thing, I think. But I’ll send you ignorant scientists/science nerds a kind thought when I chew my way through your suggested reading
“The first question I have for you is: What is it you want to learn? You will have much more success getting through the inevitable dry parts of any subject if you know you’ll be rewarded with understanding something that interests you down the road.” - Ray Ladbury.
Everything? I don’t know that I need to learn anything about language, but I’m in no position to be sure. I absolutely need to learn a great deal of math. I’ve obviously had to learn some already, but far from enough. Especially since I rely heavily on software to do much of the work for me. Isn’t it curious how computers allow even a comparative savage to run a company?
My interest is completely general. I know nothing of physics, chemistry, biology, geology or any other -ology. To be blunt, I don’t understand the world I’m part of, but I greatly desire to. I’m no mystic or anything, but the test made it perfectly clear to me that I simply don’t know anything at all, about anything. It’s clear to me that my entire worldview consists of vaguely formulated induction, and that’s simply not satisfactory to me. If nothing else, I want to at least be sure that my participation in the democratic process isn’t based in what can only be called superstition. I’m painfully aware that’s what it has been, so far.
“Good luck and feel free to contact me offline as your program progresses.” - Ray Ladbury.
Thank you very much. I just might do that.
“Go back to school.” - Elizabeth.
I’d like to, and hopefully I’ll have cleared up by Monday if it’s at all possible for me right now. Unfortunately I doubt it is, but fortunately I have quite a lot of experience in self study (I’ve taught myself this language, for example). So hopefully all’s not lost if classes aren’t an option.
“visit a local Community College or University and go to their bookstore.” - Robert Bergen.
I will, thank you. I don’t consider my age an obstacle (I’m only 30), I just don’t have a lot of maneuvering room in my schedule.
“Have you heard of the Open Courseware project at MIT.” - Ray Ladbury.
It would be fantastic if some decent teachers with enough spare time, got together and organised some real online education. Hopefully it’ll happen soon, but in the mean time; if you have the resources to try something like that, do give it a shot. I’ve spoken to a number of the people I associate with since my last post, and while I’m alone in my desire to seriously educate myself, I know at least 12 people who’d jump at a chance to learn a bit of maths, physics and biology if there was an easy way to get started.
“No theory of everything jazz, just the basics like classical mechanics and thermodynamics and the like that affect things most people come in contact with.” - Bruce.
Thanks a lot. String theory and the like is all very amusing, but you’re completely right that it’s not what I’m asking. I’d need a PhD. in physics to understand it, and though I’ll not rule out I might want one some day, some basic maths and chemistry is more relevant just now.
Again, thank you all. You have been incredibly kind and helpful, and please don’t stop if you have further suggestions. I’ll be checking back regularly and try to find out what to buy, who to talk to and what to talk to them about. And I am deeply humbled by your eagerness to get me on the right track. I hope I’ll be able to return the favour to someone, some day.
Have a great weekend all of you. Regards, Kaoten.
6 April 2007 at 9:30 PM
As an educated “layman,” my question for Ray Ladbury, comment 29, who said:
“Ironically, this fear can be even greater if the “layman” is educated in some specialized discipline, but not, say, in climate. In this case, much of the ego of the layman may be tied up in considering himself intelligent–and not to tell him he doesn’t understand something may be considered an affront. I think it was Mark Twain who said, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
(a) Why do you exempt “climatologists” from Twain’s aphorism? Why should “laymen” presume they “know” anything about what is causing short term warming when they can’t explain warming or cooling in any of the periods in the earth’s long past. Who’s thinking scientifically now?
(b) Why do you paraphrase Twain, then place it in quotations as if this is precisely what he said? Isn’t that a misrepresentation and potentially misleading?
(c) Good analogy to information asymmetry, “IA,” however, and why people might reject what they intuitively know they don’t understand. Since economics is really just the study of human action and, therefore, one of those “useless” social sciences, it unfortunately doesn’t appear to have gotten the currency it deserves here. The warmists and climatologists ought to have a little more understanding about “IA” and, then, maybe they’d have a bit more honesty about revealing what they don’t know or understand.
6 April 2007 at 10:27 PM
Re # 85 BillOGoods:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of science and scientists. Scientists confront their ignorance every day - that is why they do research, to find answers to that which they do not know. There is no question that some scientists are arrogant in thinking that they know more than they do about a particular topic, and they often get rebuked by other scientists (and non-scientists) for that arrogance -unfortunately, that is simply human nature, esp. with people who make a living by learning vast amounts of information. I’m quite sure there is not a significant field of human inquiry that isn’t full of unanswered questions. But, just because scientists (or economists, or historians) don’t know everything, doesn’t mean they know nothing. If you read the posts by the RealClimate scientists at this site - not the comments, most of which are by non-climatologists- you will see that they readily admit what they do, and don’t know. For you to suggest that “they can’t explain warming or cooling in any of the periods in the earth’s long past” is, well, a sign of your ignorance of climate science.
6 April 2007 at 10:41 PM
Re #75: [The “really big accident” that Levenson writes about is hypothetical, in the sense that it has never happened, but might some day.]
I think it can be argued that Chernobyl was that “really big accident”: that it was pretty close to being as bad as a reactor accident could possibly be. A large chunk of the core melted down, and (since there was no containment at all) was dispersed about the landscape by the graphite fire. And the effects on the public were magnified by Soviet-era policies of concealment & disinformation.
6 April 2007 at 11:15 PM
Kaoten, age is irrelevant. I had to go back to school a first time at 28 and a second time at 35 for complete career changes. I had the advantage of having a rather solid fundation in science from my high school days, which definitely made things easier, but motivation was the key. I went to a community college where I had to do a number of basic courses before starting the specialized practical stuff, and I loved it. Sometimes I used to just deambulate in the library and look at books by subject matter, dreaming that I could have the time to learn at least basics in every one of them!
If there is one practical tip I can give you, it would be this one: take some math courses and don’t let go of any subject in those before you are comfortable with it. In high school, I studied biology, chemistry, physics, and maths. Of all these, maths is an outstanding way to learn intellectual rigor, good reasoning, even logics. It shapes the mind in a way that enables you to tackle any other scientific subject, and many non scientific ones. Even though I did not perform very well in maths in high school (I was too lazy to do the necessary homework!), what little was left of it years later was still invaluable. I am looking forward to learning more as soon as life circumstances will allow.
6 April 2007 at 11:35 PM
On the Coriolis force: I learned back of the envolope forcasting of wind direction (from yacht racing) with the rule: in the northen hemisphere wind flows from high pressure to low pressure with a twist to the right. In most cases this works on the short term in normal conditions. For hurricanes (with an intense low pressure center) should rotate counter clockwise since from any point on the outside of the low pressure center the wind flowing in would be deflected to the right (when looked at from above). What am I missing here?
7 April 2007 at 12:40 AM
See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html
The average coal-fired power plant puts as much radiation into the environment as the Chernobyl accident did, but over a period of about 7 years. The difference is that nobody measures the radiation from the coal-fired power plant.
At least 73 elements found in coal-fired plant emissions are distributed in millions of pounds of stack emissions each year. They include:
Aluminum Chromium Molybdenum
Antimony Cobalt Nickel
Arsenic Copper Selenium
Barium Fluorine Silver
Beryllium Iron Sulfur
Boron Lead Titanium Thorium
Cadmium Magnesium Uranium
Calcium Manganese Vanadium
Chlorine Mercury Zinc
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Coal from Perry, Illinois contains up to 103 parts per million of uranium.
7 April 2007 at 6:30 AM
Figen, I have read your post and comments about the Coriolis effect and I cant understand what you are trying to say. Post 89 is correct. The wind rotate counter clock wise around a low pressure system (as a hurricane) and clockwise around a high pressure system (seen from above but in the reference earth reference fram). Why should the vertical motion matter when it is very slow compared to the horizontal motion? I might start to understand what you are trying to say but your use of reference frames is confusing.
7 April 2007 at 6:36 AM
All of this just goes to show why Governments and hence nations rely on a small number of experts (2500 in the IPCC’s case) to give us the diagnosis that the Earth is becomming a little ill. The reason why everyone is so up in arms about its findings and reticence is rife is simply because humanity is not that strategic in nature. No one can currently see past the fossil fuels that we currently use and vested interests are so deeply entrenched and fortunes made and lost in this arean that I sincerely doubt that 2 deg C tempeature rise will be avoided before we move to something else if that something else exists at all.
7 April 2007 at 7:30 AM
Re 85: BillOGoods, I don’t know if you’re just a post ‘n run skeptic or whether you’ll check for replies, but here goes. First, climate scientists are not immune to the foibles of humanity, but one is more likely to err the further one strays from ones field of expertise. We see this in climatologists when they stray into fields like economics. In order to understand climate, one must have at least a reasonable understanding of meteorology, so a climatologist is probably less likely to say something astoundingly stupid about meteorology.
Second, it is not arrogance to insist that one know what one in fact knows. Climate science is actually a fairly mature science. We understand the drivers of climate and mostly how they interact. We can predict the effects of perturbations, such as the Pinatubo eruption. To contend that we do not understand past climate is a mischaracterization. The further one goes back the more difficult it becomes to reconstruct all the factors, but at least in broad outline, we understand Earth’s climate history going back hundreds of millions of years. Do we expect economists to understand everything about the economic forces that gave rise to feudalism in Medieval Europe? Yet we feel we understand the period sufficiently well to see how it fits into European history as a whole. I’m sure I’ll be acc