Curiosity, talent, duty, reinforcement

Naomi Oreskes on why people become scientists:

Well, the idea that scientists are in it for the money is idiotic, because scientist are all intelligent people and if they wanted to make money there’s a lot of better things they could do…

[. . .]

Why do people become scientists? I think it’s a mix; I think there are different things. I think that a lot of scientists are just naturally curious people—there’s what we could call the “natural historical” scientists, the people who like to collect rocks and bugs and things, and I was one of those, y’know, kids who have rock collections, right? So a lot of geologists had rock collections when we were kids. So, I think those are the sort of “curious about the world around them” types.

Then there are people who go into science because they’re really good in math. If you are talented in math, there’s a lot you can do in science. There are a lot of problems in the world that, if you have quantitative skills, you can address those things in ways that other people can’t. So, math is a powerful toolkit, and if you have that toolkit, science is a great place where you can use it.

Some people go into science ’cause it’s what they’re good at. Y’know, it’s what Jim Hansen says, he says, “I went into science ’cause I was good at it.” It’s where their talents lie. So they don’t necessarily collect bugs as kids, but they do well in science in school, and then they get encouraged because a lot of people can’t do science.

And to some extent that’s what happened to me, too. When I was a girl growing up, I was good in science, but I was good in a lot of other things, too. But being good at French or English didn’t seem special; being good at science did. And people— I mean, I had teachers who said to me explicitly, “Y’know, if you can do science, you have to.” And in hindsight, that seems actually a little weird, when you think about it, but remember, I’m also the Sputnik generation, right? We were raised to think that it was almost a kind of national duty, a patriotic duty, to go into science if you could. And then as a girl of a certain age—I’m just old enough that there was a kind of gender incentive to go into science, that science was just beginning to open up to women—and so there was this feeling that if you could do science and you’re a woman, you absolutely should, y’know, science needs you, the world of science needs you.

So there was a lot of positive reinforcement to go into science, and I think lots of people in science got that positive reinforcement…

This is an absolutely wonderful interview with Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt. This part is near the end of the interview, but the whole thing is highly worth seeing. She recounts how she started out as a geologist, then became a historian of science, and one day discovered she was being attacked on the floor of the Senate by James Inhofe (R-OK). As she says, the job of a historian of science is to understand science in its social context, so when she began being attacked in very bizarre ways by people with clearly political motives, her natural response was to try to understand why they were doing this.

The result of that investigation is Merchants of Doubt, which details the history of the anti-science propaganda machine first created by tobacco companies in the 1950s to undermine public confidence in the growing scientific evidence of the dangers of smoking, and was then repurposed in the 1980s and ’90s to undermine the science of how carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is destabilizing the earth’s climate.

The video is part of Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, a free MOOC put together by John Cook and the folks at Skeptical Science, and hosted at edX. The course examines the psychology of climate science denial, the basics of climate science, the physical evidence that the earth actually is warming, and how to effectively counter the misinformation put out by the denial machine.

The course videos are all available on YouTube, as well as at edX. Very much worth watching.

Posted in Climate

Emulating arrogance

“Look, first of all, the climate is changing,” Bush said. “I don’t think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted. And for the people to say the science is decided on this is just really arrogant, to be honest with you.”

Jeb Bush, 20 May 2015

Sigh. Actually, no. The scientists who study this have been quite clear, and so has the natural world.

Carbon dioxide interferes with the ability of the earth to radiate into space the heat it receives from the sun. This is what so gratefully keeps temperatures around the world from being like the airless moon that reaches a daytime high around 240F (116C, 390K), with a nighttime low of -280F (100K, -173C). The CO2 in our air (helped along by the humidity that’s only there because the carbon dioxide keeps things warm enough that it doesn’t all freeze out) greatly reduces those extremes, but not by the same amount; our days are cooler than the moon’s, but our nights are warmer by a lot. The more CO2 there is, the greater that effect, so that typical highs and lows not only go up, they get closer together, too, and overall, the whole world warms.

By dumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, we’re heating up the world. We know that because we are directly measuring atmosphere and ocean temperatures, and measuring incoming and outgoing radiation from satellites in orbit. Together these tell us the earth is now radiating less heat into space than we receive from the sun. (This, by the way, is what they mean when they talk about positive radiative forcing. The world is getting hotter because we’re radiating less heat to space than we used to, and that forces the climate to change.)

On these basic facts, among working climate scientists, there is no significant dispute.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic [human-caused] carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since [2007]. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.

—IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group 1 Summary for Policy Makers (PDF, 2.3MB)

I understand your not wanting to contradict the carefully manufactured misconceptions Republican voters now have of how the world works, but Jeb, seriously, taking your talking points from Sen. Inhofe? So not cool…

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), with the unshakable certainty of a man convinced he knows, beats the donkey who repeatedly warned him of a danger in their path that he can’t see. Nearby, two women gaze at each other in astonishment.

Sen. Inhofe reads Genesis 8:22, “As long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,” as saying human actions can’t change global temperature or the timing of the seasons, and then proclaims it arrogant to think we could. Maybe he finds it comforting to read that into it, but it only says those pairs of things will always be here. It doesn’t say crops will forever grow where we have long grown them or in the amounts we expect and need, that patterns of heat and cold will always remain the same, or that the timing of new growth in spring or leaf-fall in autumn will never change.

The passage the senator quotes comes at the end of the flood narrative, immediately following God’s promise in Genesis 8:21, “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans… And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.” But He doesn’t say we can’t mess with the world to our peril, that He will protect us from the consequences of what we recklessly choose to do.

Nevertheless, the senator is confident he knows what we “can’t” do.

As Oxford Dictionaries puts it, arrogant means “having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities”. In contrast, there is a genuine confidence, in one’s abilities and understanding, that comes from years of practicing science, of listening to the natural world, observing it closely, letting go of certainties immune to evidence, and allowing one’s understanding to deepen as the natural world itself teaches us its nature.

Posted in Climate

When the Mediterranean became once more a sea

The Mediterranean . . . it’s got these couple of problems. It’s a respectable-sized sea, y’know; it covers an area of 970,000 square miles (2.5 million square kilometers). That much surface area, you get a lot of evaporation. Now, that’d be ok, I mean, some of it rains back in, some comes back in rivers, but the thing is . . . it doesn’t rain all that much . . . relatively speaking. And the rivers that feed into it, they’re a bit on the wimpy side . . . relatively speaking. All appreciation to the Nile for its awesomely important history and everything, but it ain’t no Amazon.

So that’s problem number one. Problem number two: the Earth is molten inside. More specifically, what we call the Earth’s crust—land and ocean bottom—is mostly a thin skin of solid rock floating on melted rock that’s ever-so-slowly churning this way or that, taking big floating hunks of crust with it wherever it happens to be going. Hunks like Africa. Africa’s been floating north-easterly for a while now; a few million years, in fact. So, not very fast, but fast enough to become a problem. Because, y’know how that Straight of Gibraltar is kind of narrow? All it’d take would be for Morocco to hook up with Spain, close the straight, and guess what? Way more water evaporating into the sky than comes back in through rivers and rain. Let that go on long enough, whadda you think’s gonna happen? Thing is, it actually has. More. Than. Once.
Continue reading

Posted in Climate

They stopped, had a quick picnic, and carried on

John Hawks is a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. In winter of 2014 he offered a 7-week MOOC (“massively open online course”) through Coursera, entitled Human Evolution: Past and Future. Superbly done, offered for free, the course included 71 videos, most of them interviews with people who are actively working in the wide array of fields essential for discovering the evolutionary lineage that led to us. The conversations weave together what we currently know about our origins and the methods that are used to uncover it. You also get to see that these people, for whom this is their life’s work, love what they do.

Many of Coursera’s already-completed courses allow you to sign up even after their end date, so you can access the videos and course material. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. Everything is still there, but it can only be seen by those of us who enrolled before it finished. At some point in the next year or two, the course will be updated and offered again, and you can ask to be notified when that happens. In the meantime, more than two dozen of its videos can now be seen at Prof. Hawks’ youtube channel.

An example is a visit to caves at Gibraltar, Deciphering the Behavior of Neandertals with Geraldine Finlayson and Clive Finlayson, from week six of the course, “Emerging Culture – Neandertals and Modern Humans.”

Clive is director of the Gibraltar Museum, Geraldine is an archaeologist, and they describe what they’re finding at two excavation sites: Gorham’s Cave and Vanguard Cave. At the extreme western edge of the Mediterranean, in layers of sediment dated to about 32,000 years before present, these caves hold what is currently the last known evidence anywhere for the presence of Neandertal peoples.

Towards the end, Geraldine comes to the remains of a single event in the life of Gorham’s Cave—fragments of charcoal from a small fire, along with mussel shells and flakes from stone tools—revealed when layers of sand were removed, exposing what lay underneath.

At that time, the world was in an ice age. With so much water imprisoned in glacial ice, sea level was much lower. These days, the Mediterranean is quite close to the mouth of the cave. Back then, it would have been a half kilometer to a kilometer or more away, depending on which direction you headed. Even so, the cave received so much wind-blown sand that anything left inside, by animals or people, was quickly covered over.

It’s for things like this, that I love these conversations so much.

17:11–18:52

GF: This is the beauty of this cave, This cave gives you events that are maybe hours or days long at most. So you’ve got this group of possibly two individuals, they come in with their little bundle of mussels that they have foraged nearby on the coastline. We don’t know exactly where the coastline would have been, but it can’t be very far ’cause you don’t carry seafoods for very long ’cause they spoil very easily.

And they come into the cave, they build a very small fire. There’s not much charcoal left from that fire, and there’s not much alteration on the sediment, so there wasn’t a huge heat on that fire, probably just enough to open those mussels. They consume the mussels. Once they’re there, they’re retouching the lithics that they’re using—their stone tools. They take those away with them, when they go, but they leave all the debitage behind. And then that’s it, y’know. They’ve gone.

So this might– they may have stayed overnight, or it may have been, y’know, just a brief few hours, but the fact is when they go, the sand covers it up, and it’s left there untouched until we come along and re-excavate it. I think that’s a huge resolution. I mean, that is unique, I think.

JH: It’s completely remarkable.

GF: It’s beautiful.

JH: It is the closest that we come anytime in this to seeing what somebody’s life is like…

GF: Absolutely, yes, yes.

JH: …and that I think is just amazing.

GF: It tells us a lot as well, because it tells us that they needn’t necessarily have always been sitting around, y’know. They move from place to place. They stopped temporarily, had a quick picnic, and then carried on, y’know? And in this particular case, it was just two individuals. There’s no evidence it was any more than that.

Posted in Paleoanthropology

Rising Star Expedition’s final day

The Rising Star Expedition is a joint project of the National Geographic Society and the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. Originally expected to be a brief expedition to recover a single partial hominid skeleton from a newly discovered site in one of the ancient limestone caves in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site in South Africa, it quickly became apparent that this was a hominid fossil site of such breath-taking richness that it will keep paleontologists busy for decades to come.

After three weeks of deep-cave hominid fossil recovery, the Rising Star Expedition has wrapped on its final day of excavations.

The caver/scientists known as “underground astronauts” will return Wednesday [27 Nov 2013] to complete the 3D scans of the entire fossil chamber, walls and all. They will be aided by the caving support team as they remove the hi-tech equipment that has made this NASA-like mission possible.

There are 17 sleeping tents, plus the storage tent and the larger mess hall, Cavers tent, Science tent, and Command Center to disassemble, pack, and ship out.

There are also the more than 1200 cataloged hominid fossil elements to transfer to Wits University.

Plans are now being made for how to handle all these new fossils, not only in terms of how to move them, but also how to process and study them. Paleoanthropologists and students generally only have a few new hominid fossil elements to work with from any given site at any given time. Having dozens of elements is unusual. Totals in the hundreds have generally taken years or decades to reach. To come out of three weeks of excavation with more than a thousand hominid fossils is unheard of in Southern Africa.

Handling all this material will require the creation of new systems, new forms of collaboration, and new opportunities for young and up-and-coming scientists. Lee Berger and his team of senior scientists are developing such a plan now.

via Rising Star Expedition – News Watch.

All that and they literally barely scratched the surface of the cave floor in the first chamber.

Posted in Paleoanthropology