So here in the US today is the annual day when we all stuff our faces with turkey and other foods and give thanks to what we have so:
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
So I will try to find Thanksgiving related links (so expect a couple more to show up throughout the day)
Brian Switek at Dinosaur Tracking points out that turkeys are just SLIGHTLY modified theropods.
On the theropod tangent David Orr at Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs shows his love for one living theropod.
In one of my favorite weekly posts by David Orr the Vintage Dinosaur Art focuses this week on Dinosaurs' Thanksgiving.
How about some science related food trivia on this big day?
Jeffrey Rowland's guest comic at xkcd today has an interesting theory as to why Thanksgiving was started.
Your Holiday Dinosaur!
Hoping to find some more throughout the day!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
151 years ago
Today marks the 151st anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of the species. I do own a copy it is in an anthology called Darwin, the Indelible Stamp which is edited and has Commentary by James D. Watson, yes of DNA fame. I recommend the pick up because it includes The Voyage of the Beagle; On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex; The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.
And the actual book:
And the actual book:
Buffalo Commons
This was something I was not aware of till recently due to a discussion and a project I have to do for a class this semester. The reason I probably hadn't heard of it is because I grew up on the east coast so I didn't experience these problems.
When people think of the Great Plains of the United States they probably think of miles and miles of flat terrain covered in corn and other similar crops. While this is true of much of the eastern portion, Iowa good parts of Oklahoma and Texas etc, the western portion, from Montana and North Dakota south, is typically not as lucky. The western portion sits in the leeward side of the Rocky Mountains and this produces a rain shadow effect. North American settlers have tried to conquer this area for close to 200 years with agriculture, this is one of the leading causes of dust bowl. Much of the agriculture in this area is reliant on an aquifer, the Ogallala Aquifer, for their water. This has resulted in a severe depletion of the aquifer since it has been strongly pumped starting in the 1950s. All of these problems have led to this area drastically losing population over the last few decades.
In 1987 Deborah and Frank Popper wrote an article, the full article can be read, in Planning Magazine arguing for the creation of what has been called a Buffalo Commons. This area would be a massive area of land that would be returned to the native grassland conditions. In these areas cattle and other domesticated animals would be removed and instead be replaced by native animals such as bison, pronghorn, and deer (The first two have been greatly reduced in number and range since settlement began as can be read in their respective articles); on a side note I would hope they would also allow replacement of predators such as wolves as well. This land would be treated as a National Park, since it would be bought up by the federal government. This would hopefully increase tourism to this area and may slow or stop the depopulation of the great plains, or at least give those who stay another industry to earn money from.
When the idea was originally proposed there was a huge backlash against the idea. This would make sense many of the farmers and ranchers in this area are hard working, they have to be, and they don't want outsiders telling them what to do. This land still produces a large amount of cattle and the land is still worth a lot of money. Over time, however, there has been a slow growing acceptance for this idea including an article written about a year ago, November 2009, advocating for the creation of the Buffalo Commons (I would link to this but the link is no longer active).
Now I am not trying to advocate, one way or another, about this idea I am just trying to draw attention to this and maybe start a discussion. As I said I wouldn't have known about it had it not been for a project I have to work on in one of my classes this semester and but I feel it is an idea that should be talked about. I can see benefits; no more withdraw on the aquifers, increase in native grasses to help prevent erosion, and tourism being brought to the area; but I can also see negatives; this land will not be available for use later, what do the owners of the land do when their land is bought from them, and the cost of tearing down all that has been built in the area will cost just as much as buying up the land. I only want to bring this idea to a larger population.
Read more on the Buffalo Commons:
Great Plains Restoration Council article on the Buffalo Commons
Wikipedia article
When people think of the Great Plains of the United States they probably think of miles and miles of flat terrain covered in corn and other similar crops. While this is true of much of the eastern portion, Iowa good parts of Oklahoma and Texas etc, the western portion, from Montana and North Dakota south, is typically not as lucky. The western portion sits in the leeward side of the Rocky Mountains and this produces a rain shadow effect. North American settlers have tried to conquer this area for close to 200 years with agriculture, this is one of the leading causes of dust bowl. Much of the agriculture in this area is reliant on an aquifer, the Ogallala Aquifer, for their water. This has resulted in a severe depletion of the aquifer since it has been strongly pumped starting in the 1950s. All of these problems have led to this area drastically losing population over the last few decades.
In 1987 Deborah and Frank Popper wrote an article, the full article can be read, in Planning Magazine arguing for the creation of what has been called a Buffalo Commons. This area would be a massive area of land that would be returned to the native grassland conditions. In these areas cattle and other domesticated animals would be removed and instead be replaced by native animals such as bison, pronghorn, and deer (The first two have been greatly reduced in number and range since settlement began as can be read in their respective articles); on a side note I would hope they would also allow replacement of predators such as wolves as well. This land would be treated as a National Park, since it would be bought up by the federal government. This would hopefully increase tourism to this area and may slow or stop the depopulation of the great plains, or at least give those who stay another industry to earn money from.
When the idea was originally proposed there was a huge backlash against the idea. This would make sense many of the farmers and ranchers in this area are hard working, they have to be, and they don't want outsiders telling them what to do. This land still produces a large amount of cattle and the land is still worth a lot of money. Over time, however, there has been a slow growing acceptance for this idea including an article written about a year ago, November 2009, advocating for the creation of the Buffalo Commons (I would link to this but the link is no longer active).
Now I am not trying to advocate, one way or another, about this idea I am just trying to draw attention to this and maybe start a discussion. As I said I wouldn't have known about it had it not been for a project I have to work on in one of my classes this semester and but I feel it is an idea that should be talked about. I can see benefits; no more withdraw on the aquifers, increase in native grasses to help prevent erosion, and tourism being brought to the area; but I can also see negatives; this land will not be available for use later, what do the owners of the land do when their land is bought from them, and the cost of tearing down all that has been built in the area will cost just as much as buying up the land. I only want to bring this idea to a larger population.
Read more on the Buffalo Commons:
Great Plains Restoration Council article on the Buffalo Commons
Wikipedia article
Global Climate Change Update
Another great video by Greenman3610 (prior posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) this time discussing the sea ice levels for this year. This year's levels were again low and this refutes the claim by the pseudo science blog Watts Up With That.
I also wanted to point everyone toward his website/blog for Climate Denial Crock of the Week.
Potholer54 (prior posts about him and his other channel potholer54debunks can be found here, here, here, and here) summarizes some other research in the scientific community dealing with climate change focusing on hurricanes, atolls, and coral. In general that models predict that we should see fewer hurricanes but those that do form are more likely to be stronger, atolls should continue to grow unless corals stop growing, due to purging of their algae or due to acidification. He mostly focuses on the overreaction of the media to all of these reports, both sides are guilty.
(he lists most of his sources for the hurricane portion in the video description and the rest of his sources are here)
Energy policy is sorely needed!
I also wanted to point everyone toward his website/blog for Climate Denial Crock of the Week.
Potholer54 (prior posts about him and his other channel potholer54debunks can be found here, here, here, and here) summarizes some other research in the scientific community dealing with climate change focusing on hurricanes, atolls, and coral. In general that models predict that we should see fewer hurricanes but those that do form are more likely to be stronger, atolls should continue to grow unless corals stop growing, due to purging of their algae or due to acidification. He mostly focuses on the overreaction of the media to all of these reports, both sides are guilty.
(he lists most of his sources for the hurricane portion in the video description and the rest of his sources are here)
Energy policy is sorely needed!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Pterosaurs Could Fly!
In response to a number of recent papers suggesting that heavy pterosaurs, such as Quetzalcoatlus, might not be able to fly (Chatterjee and Templin, 2004; Wilkinson, 2008; Sato et al., 2009; Henderson, 2010), a new paper was published last week by Dr. Mark Witton and Dr. Michael Habib stating that they could in fact launch themselves and were capable of flight(Witton and Habib, 2010). Most of the media attention focused on the launch part, even though the idea had been published in the past (Habib, 2008), and even some publications that refered to pterosaurs as dinosaurs (argh) I was glad to see the NPR report on the paper that included a few words with Dr. Habib.
Sources
Chatterjee S., and Templin R.J. (2004) Posture, Locomotion and Palaeoecology of Pterosaurs. Geological Society of America Special Publication 376: 1–64.
Habib M.B. (2008) Comparative evidence for quadrupedal launch in pterosaurs.
Zitteliana B28: 161–168.
Henderson D.M. (2010) Pterosaur body mass estimates from three-dimensional
mathematical slicing. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30: 768–785.
Sato K., Sakamoto K., Watanuki Y., Takahashi A., Katsumata N., et al. (2009)
Scaling of soaring seabirds and implications for flight abilities of giant
pterosaurs. PLoS ONE 4: e5400.
Wilkinson M.T. (2008) Three dimensional geometry of a pterosaur wing
skeleton, and its implications for aerial and terrestrial locomotion. Zoological
Journal of Linnaean Society 154: 27–69.
Witton MP, Habib MB (2010) On the Size and Flight Diversity of Giant Pterosaurs, the Use of Birds as Pterosaur Analogues and Comments on Pterosaur Flightlessness. PLoS ONE 5(11): e13982. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013982
Sources
Chatterjee S., and Templin R.J. (2004) Posture, Locomotion and Palaeoecology of Pterosaurs. Geological Society of America Special Publication 376: 1–64.
Habib M.B. (2008) Comparative evidence for quadrupedal launch in pterosaurs.
Zitteliana B28: 161–168.
Henderson D.M. (2010) Pterosaur body mass estimates from three-dimensional
mathematical slicing. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30: 768–785.
Sato K., Sakamoto K., Watanuki Y., Takahashi A., Katsumata N., et al. (2009)
Scaling of soaring seabirds and implications for flight abilities of giant
pterosaurs. PLoS ONE 4: e5400.
Wilkinson M.T. (2008) Three dimensional geometry of a pterosaur wing
skeleton, and its implications for aerial and terrestrial locomotion. Zoological
Journal of Linnaean Society 154: 27–69.
Witton MP, Habib MB (2010) On the Size and Flight Diversity of Giant Pterosaurs, the Use of Birds as Pterosaur Analogues and Comments on Pterosaur Flightlessness. PLoS ONE 5(11): e13982. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013982
Friday, November 19, 2010
GOP and Climate Change
Climate change is happening and we are steadily going to reach the peak production possible for oil, these are facts but they are facts which many, most common among those on the right (this does not exclude everyone on the left nor does it apply to everyone on the right), try to deny, see here. This is why I was glad to see this story late last night in which outgoing Republican Rep. Bob Inglis (SC), a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, chided his colleagues and incoming chair of the committee, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), for denying climate change.
Sometimes I worry about our future.
There are people who make a lot of money on talk radio and talk TV saying a lot of things. They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they’re experts on climate change. They substitute their judgment for people who have Ph.D.s and work tirelessly.I am glad that Rep. Inglis is supporting science but it is unfortunate that this support of actual science was probably one of the things that did not get him reelected, he lost his primary to a Tea Party candidate. It is sad what many people think about education in this country. The G.I. bill, which allowed vets from WWII to get a college education, is one of the reasons that we became a great country but now it has come to this:
Sometimes I worry about our future.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
I am mildly supprised
So the way Louisiana has been I was surprised to see this published by the Louisiana Coalition for Science, for background on this story see my post here.
Readers will have to pardon the mixed metaphors in this post, but something happened today in Louisiana that is is about as common here as snowflakes at Christmas: the voice of reason prevailed at a meeting of public officials.This is a big win for Louisiana students and I am happy to see that a lot of people showed up in support of science education, although it isn't completely supp rising. I don't have much to say so I will let Barbara Forrest carry us out on this one.
The Louisiana Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council met today, Friday, November 12, at 9 a.m. at the Claiborne Building in downtown Baton Rouge. The council voted 8-4 to recommend approval of the biology books that had already been approved by the Textbook Review Committee. Teachers, scientists, and students showed up at this meeting to support the earlier decision of the Textbook Review Committee and to protest the attempt by the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) to commandeer yet another aspect of Louisiana science education policy.
Well, gosh, let’s hope this decision paves the way for BESE’s approval of the textbooks. Regardless of what happens next month, all of us owe a big “thank you” to the good citizens who showed up at that meeting today.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Thank you Baton Rouge Advocate
So after my post last night I was delighted to see this short opinion piece by the Baton Rouge Advocate's opinion staff earlier this afternoon. They argue, and rightly so, that evolution is a science supported by the facts and that Louisiana doesn't want to turn into the next Texas or Kansas and be the laughing stock of the U.S. and even the world.
But it is the duty of the committee members not to be politicians — a couple of the members are state legislators — or representatives of public opinion. The committee members have a duty to reject intrusion of pseudo-science, such as creationism or its offshoot “intelligent design,” into science classrooms.Let me just say this, thank you Baton Rouge Advocate for supporting true science education!
[...]It’s one thing to be different culturally, as Louisiana is in so many ways. But the facts of science and biology do not change. For Louisiana to be different in the direction of ignorance would be a humiliation in the eyes of the nation and the world.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Louisiana wants to Warn you about Evolution
I first noticed this yesterday as a post by the NCSE on Facebook and then saw today's post over at Louisiana Coalition for Science. The second post give a pretty good summary of the whole history of the attempts to teach creationism in Louisiana. Pretty much this story boils down to there are forces within the Louisiana state education board to put warning stickers on the textbooks teaching about evolution in that it isn't completely true. This isn't the way science works as I have said many times before science is supported by evidence that has been found and experimented on over multiple trials, just because you don't believe it doesn't make it not true. You don't want to learn the science that is fine you just need to find the evidence that supports your claim. Anyway read the second post up above to find out more.
Prior posts on the problems of science in Louisiana
The state wants to cut the Louisiana Geological Survey
Creationism Lives on in US Public Schools
An attempt to get Creationism in one Parish's schools
Warning about Creationist materials being handed out in schools
Prior posts on the problems of science in Louisiana
The state wants to cut the Louisiana Geological Survey
Creationism Lives on in US Public Schools
An attempt to get Creationism in one Parish's schools
Warning about Creationist materials being handed out in schools
Expelled
Creationists often accuse scientists of preventing those with dissenting opinions from being able to publish or hold positions in science departments etc. The movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was exceptionally guilty of this, among several other classic creationist claims. Well it turns out that one of the main people in that film, William Dembski, was almost fired from his job for saying that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and the universe was ~14 billion. Dr. Michael Zimmerman has a good break down of the whole incident over at the HuffPo and his article is worth the read.
I find the whole incident mildly ironic. Accusing scientists of doing something and then doing the same thing yourself come on now. Also let me point out one thing if creationists were to submit papers that presented evidence that supported their claims then they might get published. The fact that they haven't yet is telling after all science is the search for the truth as to how the universe works if you present facts most scientists will tend to accept them, yes I know this is a little simplified.
I find the whole incident mildly ironic. Accusing scientists of doing something and then doing the same thing yourself come on now. Also let me point out one thing if creationists were to submit papers that presented evidence that supported their claims then they might get published. The fact that they haven't yet is telling after all science is the search for the truth as to how the universe works if you present facts most scientists will tend to accept them, yes I know this is a little simplified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
