Tag: science

all continents are drifting back together

Remember in school when we were taught that all the continents of the Earth were at one time a single large supercontinent?  Now some scientists are saying we’re going back to that.  And not only that, but that this has happened before, many times, and each cycle is 500 million years.  So the continents all break apart, then eventually they all come back together in the middle.

What’s crazy is that the TV show that was saying this said it was like wooden continental plate models floating in boiling water.  They showed this, and the plates did drift apart.  But then they go about randomly, so it wasn’t really a good model after all.  It just didn’t seem too scientific.  But they’re the scientists, so we should believe everything they say, right?

Also, when the continents come back together, this will result in extreme climates, and it may be enough to wipe out some of life.  If that has happened multiple times, wouldn’t that throw a wrench in the theory of evolution?

How do fireworks work?

Have you ever wondered how certain fireworks can make awesome displays of color and explosion?  There’s actually quite a bit of science behind it.  Basically, the fireworks designers have to figure out how to slow down the chemical reaction and explosion to make them look better.  And the light comes from them cooling down.  I won’t bore you with the technical details.  You can visit this site to get a more detailed explanation.

I’ve dreamed of a job designing fireworks, and I still think it would be fun, but I’d rather learn by trial and experiment rather than all the scientific formulations and stuff…  🙂

fireworks

Are greenhouse gas emissions beyond “worst-case” scenario?

In the news today, one of Australia’s leading climate change experts said global greenhouse gas emissions are already beyond the “worst-case” scenario.  He’s referring to a scenario defined by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) back in 2001.  For one thing, I thought they just met again this year in some big conference to discuss global warming and all that stuff, so why haven’t they updated their models with current data?  And another thing, the weather here seems mostly normal, so their “worst-case” scenario wasn’t well thought out, in my opinion.  Go outside and observe your weather, then consider if it’s anything near “worst-case”.  It’s not here.  If it is elsewhere, maybe more folks ought to move to Arkansas, because we’re having good weather right now.  (Just don’t bring your greenhouse gas emissions here!)

In fact, I was standing outside after lunch today, talking to some friends and enjoying the good weather.  I had no idea we were in the “worst-case” scenario!  Perhaps I should join the IPCC and explain what “worst-case” really means.  Have these people never seen the movie The Day After Tomorrow?  I’m thinking that would be worst-case.  Or, if you want to be really pessimistic, worst-case would be the Earth becoming uninhabitable.

Now, I realize I’m no important scientist, and sometimes we should leave stuff up to the “experts”, but I think they really dropped the ball on this one.  Are they just trying to scare us with these climate forecasting models and subsequent news releases?  It sure doesn’t sound like they’re downplaying it, because it’s all over the news, but today’s news release really has me befuddled.  It looks like they’re crying “wolf”.  And anybody who knows their children’s stories should realize that’s a bad strategy.  If we’re now beyond the worst-case scenario, it doesn’t seem so bad.  So is all their ballyhooing for naught?  I don’t know. I think we do need to reduce pollution and quit burning so many fossil fuels, but I don’t see how we’ve went beyond the “worst-case” scenario…

If their worst-case model shows some drastic changes over the next few years, like billions of people dying, then they should let us know.  But the news release said nothing about such things.  Perhaps they just don’t really know what they’re talking about…