Geology and science fiction: what do I think?

I'm finally mostly caught up on work, so I can answer Peggy's questions about science and science fiction.

Questions for Science Bloggers

* What is your relationship to science fiction? Do you read it? Watch it? What/who do you like and why?

Yes, I read and watch science fiction. I've enjoyed it since I was a kid, probably because I found other worlds interesting. (Especially in comparison to the sort of petty interpersonal politics that dominated grade school, junior high, and high school.) I was fascinated by big and different.

As an adult, I like stories that imagine societies different from ours. Science fiction (and also fantasy) seem like great ways to explore human-ness by imagining what happens if things were a little different. Maybe the difference is some kind of technology. Maybe the difference is a cultural attitude. In a way, it's like experiments in science.

* What do you see as science fiction's role in promoting science, if any? Can it do more than make people excited about science? Can it harm the cause of science?

I don't think science fiction is particularly good at promoting science. (One word: Frankenstein.) An awful lot of science fiction seems to reveal a fear of the unknown, a fear of tampering with nature or with going too far in trying to understand something. It's not true of all science fiction (or fantasy), but I've seen it in places as different as Tolkien and the new Dr. Who.

Whether it harms the cause of science... well, honestly, I don't think that science should be a cause, really. Science is a sort of organized curiosity about the natural world, and it's sad to live amongst people who are uncurious and afraid of learning new things. But the introspection can be a good thing, as long as it doesn't become some kind of trite repetition of the story of the Tree of Knowledge.

* Have you used science fiction as a starting point to talk about science? Is it easier to talk about people doing it right or getting it wrong?

Geology is rarely explicitly part of science fiction. (Any time a different world is imagined, geology could be used to build a world that makes sense. I've rarely seen an imaginary world that makes geologic sense, unfortunately.) Off the top of my head, I can think of only one set of books that does geology well (Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson), and I have yet to run across a student who is familiar with them.

As for movies: I guess The Core could count as a science fiction movie (as well as a bad disaster movie). I've encouraged students to watch it and criticize the geology, but it's so goofy that it's difficult to get much science from it. I haven't seen the new Journey to the Center of the Earth, but I've watched the old version with geology students. Again, it was fun to laugh at it, but it was so wrong that it was hard to know where to start with a critique. And I mention The Day After Tomorrow in class to try to explain why the textbook talks about deep ocean currents in the context of climate, but mostly we end up laughing about Jake Gyllenhaal running away from wolves in New York rather than critiquing the science in detail.

* Are there any specific science or science fiction blogs you would recommend to interested readers or writers?

Anyone who wants to read more about geology should just subscribe to Chris Rowan's geoblogosphere feed, and choose their favorite blogs for themselves.

Reading list suggestions?

I've got this gift certificate from Amazon that I received for Christmas. I should use it before I lose it (literally). I'm looking for suggestions of good books to read - especially anything about geology/general science/environmental stuff/feminism & science. (I'm also looking for suggestions of movies with spectacular scenery - for example, one of my favorite movies is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which I love especially for its landscapes.)

I'm planning to get Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, which was recommended to me by several friends at GSA. (And I've read McPhee. Love it, own Annals of the Former World in two versions per essay, and use The Control of Nature and Assembling California regularly in classes.)

Anything you've found lately that is engaging, thought-provoking, and a pleasure to read? (Or, for that matter, do you have a favorite classic popular science book? There's a lot that I haven't read.)

book rec: Storm World by Chris Mooney

As students walked into my Earth Systems Science class on the first day of fall semester, 2005, they saw a satellite image I had just grabbed from NOAA’s website: Hurricane Katrina, aimed straight at New Orleans. It seemed like the perfect image to illustrate the relevance of studying Earth. But I’m a solid-earth geoscientist; I’ve never taken a class in Oceanography or Climatology or Meteorology. And when the science about hurricanes and global warming became big news, I wasn’t very well prepared to answer students’ questions about what scientists really think. Since then, I’ve read news reports, NOAA’s web page, articles in Science, Real Climate... and I’ve had trouble figuring out how all the pieces fit together.

Storm World, the new book by Chris Mooney, gives me the context I needed. It starts by tracing the history of ideas about hurricanes through the 19th and 20th centuries. One of Mooney’s central points is the difference in methodology and models, from the very beginning, between scientists who started with physically based models and scientists who started with observations. It’s a familiar pattern to this field geologist, who has heard Ernest Rutherford’s comments about physics vs. stamp-collecting in many different guises. But in the history of hurricane science, it’s clear that both approaches can provide insights, and both can miss the mark. For instance, in the 19th century, two key aspects of hurricanes were recognized by the two different groups: physics led to theorizing about the release of heat as clouds form, and observations led to descriptions of a hurricane’s circling winds. (It took recognition of the Coriolis effect to show that the two models could work together.) Although it is possible to follow the two approaches into the 21st century, the researchers interact, sometimes by attacking one another, and sometimes by picking up an idea from the other group and transforming it. (For instance, observations showed that hurricanes derive their power from warm ocean water – which leads to the big question addressed first by theoreticians: what happens if we warm the atmosphere and oceans?)

The book continues by tracing the debate over what effect (if any) global warming will have (or has already had) on hurricane strength. It covers the science, the personalities, and the media attention in 2005. All the while, it manages to be simultaneously even-handed and engaging. I don’t know why it works – the history and the science are both complicated, and the cast of characters is immense. And yet the story is woven together so neatly that I never felt the need for a time line or a chart showing the academic genealogy of the major players.

And now I have answers to a lot of my questions. What exactly is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and why don't I understand the explanation on NOAA's website? (Answer: it's an alternate way of explaining recent warm temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, one that doesn't rely on global warming. It isn't clear whether there really is a cycle, or whether temperature changes from the 70's (cooler) to the 00's (warmer) are the result of natural processes or anthropogenic global warming.) Why does NOAA's website contradict articles in Science? (Answer: partly because there's argument over the articles, but also partly because of decisions by political appointees.) The history and politics of the science are fascinating, and have influenced the way in which the science is described to the general public. These are things I need to know - as a teacher, I also have the opportunity to frame discussions in particular ways, just as science journalists do. I haven't yet decided how I will change my discussion of climate in class, but I'm thinking that it may need a bit of an overhaul.

It is refreshing to read such an engaging account of science in action. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the history of science, in climate and weather, or in the interactions of science, the media, and public policy. And for anyone who, like me, teaches about weather and climate in the context of introductory science courses, the book is an absolute must-read.