The Great Warming - and I missed it

We were reading about framing science in our discussion group and I came across a link for a movie called The Great Warming. Apparently it's been out in theaters since Nov 2007. How did I not hear about this?
Granted, I live in a small town so it's not likely that it would be screened here, but I figured I would have heard something about it from the great-omnipotent-geo-paleo-blogosphere (see updated Blogroll). The reason I think I should have heard something about this movie is that there are several interviews from church leaders and screenings specifically designed for churches and I read some pretty rabid vocal atheistic science blogs. Normally they would be up in arms about such a video. Mixing science and religion? But, it seems like the producers have "framed" the movie for different audiences. This is also evident in their DVD sales where you can buy 4 different versions of the movie (National Wildlife Federation version, Church/Synagogue version, Faith version, and Extended version).
I have not seen the movie so I cannot comment on the quality of the science presented and I am not willing to pay $29.99 to see it. Has anyone else seen this movie? Is it everything the reviews say it is?

Just for reference this is loosely based on the book "Storm Warning - Gambling with the climate of our Planet" by Lydia Dotto, then as a 3-part documentary in Canada in 2004, then a 1 hr PBS special on the movie called "Global Warming: The Signs and the Science" and has since turned into a movie.

Mt St. Helen's Video

Thanks to Nobel Intent who posted a link to the time lapse photo of the Mt St. Helen's eruption over the past few years (2004-2007). I loved seeing how the lava dome affected the glaciers. Just thought I would pass it on as well if you haven't seen it yet.
Time Lapse Video of Mt. St. Helen's Eruption
Looks like you need Windows Media Player to play it...
If you can't get the link to work, try directly at DEM showing dome growth and look under the header September 2004 - July 2007 DEM showing dome growth.

More on Death Defying Feats

Well, since Geotripper and Highly Allochthonous already brought up what will a geologist do for fun I thought this would be a good time to post a link my sister sent me recently. (If you are afraid of falling from great heights, don't even click the link.)
A little background: My sister lives in Okinawa Japan and she is going to take a 3 week trip through northern China (if they finally get a decent ticketing agent who doesn't mess things up). Before she and her husband leave, my fiancee and I want to visit. Since the plane ticket is often the most expensive part of the trip, we are also considering making it an extended vacation and visiting China (maybe even Tibet) with them. Things are still in the preliminary stages, but hopefully it all works out. In planning for this trip, she sent me a link of a hike in China. She knows I love rocks, hiking, and rock climbing and she thought this would be right up my alley. Well, it is, in a scary sh**-your-pants sort of way.
I loved the personal account provided at the bottom of the page (if short on time, just skip down and look at their pictures). While I would be scared at times, I would love to do something like this. I am not worried that I wouldn't be able to do it, it's only a couple of hours, there are handholds and you can purchase a harness for $5, but I know that I would have moments of puckering. Now, I wouldn't be as stupid as some tourists described, I'd at least have proper footware, gloves, harness, etc. And most of the hikes are just stairs, up and up and up. After reading this account by someone who is more along my risk tolerance level, I know I would have fun doing this. The scenery, the rocks, and the hike itself are worth the risk to me. How about you?
(Some commenters on the web pages above have questioned the percieved risk, but in places it is fatal if you fall. So I'm still considering it a risky endeavor.)

Journey to the center of the Earth

Well, I might be making my submission to the Accretionary Wedge a bit early. I just received an e-mail from Earth Science Week (AGI) and they are advertising for a movie called 'Journey to the Center of the Earth - 3D.' It is a remake of the Jules Verne classic starring Brandon Frasier. While the book may be good for entertainment purposes, I'm not sure this movie will have much relation to geoscience education (i.e. reality). AGI says they will be developing a booklet of geoscience information and activities and will use the movie to explore “science fiction and science fact.” If the booklet is done well this could be a great learning opportunity, assuming the booklet is widely distributed and people read it. The skeptic in me says most people going to see the movie will not read the pamphlet, but the optimist hopes they will. I have not been impressed with the Earth Science Toolkit they sell for Earth Science Week (all flash, no activities - the web site is infinitely more helpful), but hopefully this pamphlet will address specific points about what the center of the Earth is actually like. Maybe they can even try and correct the geologic misconception that the mantle is liquid. I guess we'll have to wait and see when the movie and pamphlet comes out mid-July.

Things that made me go hmmmm?

Well, I was inspired by Geotripper on my flight from Bozeman, MT to Seattle, WA to take a few pictures. The skies were clear, the sun was up, and I was awake. As I stared out the window I realized my camera was in our carry-on and it would be the perfect opportunity to test my aerial photography skills. Besides features that I easily recognized, there were a few features that made me go "hmmmm." It only took me a minute or two to figure out what was going on by looking at the surrounding topography.

First, I managed to get a nice picture of the Montana Fold and Thrust belt. Just off to the left is one of the last thrusts to propogate out into the foreland basin.


Second, we came across what looked like rolling fog (it was first thing in the morning so fog was possibe). But, knowing the elevation and the season it had too be clouds. The elevation of the mountins was so high, it was neat to watch the clouds move around the mountains and down the valley.


Third, I saw all these meandering lines in the forest. I guessed they were logging roads and sure enough they led to clear cut swaths but in others places there was selective logging. It was amazing how much logging was going on in this area.


So even without a GPS on the plane I was able to figure out where I was and spot some interesting details from the plane. It was the most fun I've had on an 8AM flight. (I am not a morning person!)

And, just to make everyone jealous, I am in Vancouver skiing at Whistler-Blackcomb. Here's a picture of one of the cornices we dropped before tearing it up in the bowl. This is our friend Brodie who came all the way from Peru. Woohoo! Ok, off to the pub! Hope everyone else is having fun too.

Evolution for Guiness

As a scientist and prodigous beer drinker, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to pass this video along. Hat tip to Laelaps.

Testing for misconceptions in the classroom

I came across this web site when trying to pick a geologic misconception to discuss. It was interesting and I thought I would point it out. It is a 73 question test designed to assess student learning in Earth Science classes. The questions have been carefully designed and modified after many student and teacher interviews.

What specifically brought this to my attention is one of the sample questions they provided. The students had to have a misconception of how geology worked in order to get the sample question wrong.
Sample GCI Question #2. The following maps show the position of the Earth's continents and oceans. The o's on each map mark the locations where volcanic eruptions occur on land. Which map do you think most closely represents the places where these volcanoes are typically observed?
A surprising number of students chose the equator/tropics “because it’s warmer there.” This demonstrates that some students often have misconceptions about how geology works. However, I wonder if this portion of students are those that don’t pay attention in class and don’t do their homework? Any rudimentary discussion on plate tectonics covers the Ring of Fire (which was one of the choices) and so they should be able to answer this question. If these are legitimate “studying” students, why are they getting this question wrong?

Assessment tests like this can be useful in finding out what concepts students are not understanding (especially if they are observed in a large portion of the class) and help make us better instructors. But when would you apply this test? The 73 question set is designed for you to make into a 15 question test. I think I would try this test during the middle of the class to see if there are any concepts I need to clear up before continuing. I don’t think it would replace my normal exams with this test because I don’t agree with a bunch of the questions on the test. It may be because I am over-thinking some of them. For example:

3. If the single continent in #73 did exist, how could scientists estimate the time needed for the single continent to break apart and form the arrangement of continents we see today?

(A) Scientists do not yet have a valid method for estimating the time needed to break continents apart.
(B) Through comparison of fossils found in rocks
(C) Through analysis of carbon in rock
(D) Through analysis of uranium and lead in rock
(E) Through comparison of different layers found in rocks

I am guessing the correct answer is (B) fossils and they are using examples like Lystrosaurus that are found in South America and Africa. However, the rifting phase also generates a lot of igneous rock so U/Pb dating is also possible. While (E) is a little more ambiguous and doesn’t give us time (without fossil or isotope data), it’s exactly what geologists do. We compare layers of rocks and we can compare those in South America and Africa and find similarities that tell us they used to be together.

They designed this multiple-choice test to have answers that are ambiguous along with the correct answer. I find those tests particularly difficult because you can over-think them. You can usually think of a reason to include another answer (especially frustrating if it’s choose all that apply), but you don’t have any way to explain your choices. I think that’s what demonstrates real knowledge, having to explain why you chose those answers. I understand they chose multiple-choice for ease of grading, but I think tests where students have to demonstrate their knowledge are better (but much more time consuming to grade).