Welcome to Mr. Putnam's EWA Website
ABOUT ME
Hi. My name is Jesse Putnam and I am one of the two science teachers here at Summit learning Charter. I am excited to work with you! This website will primarily be helpful to you if you are working in OdysseyWare and trying to figure out how to complete the projects.
Jesse Putnam
Phone: 971-340-6197
E-mail: [email protected]
Hi. My name is Jesse Putnam and I am one of the two science teachers here at Summit learning Charter. I am excited to work with you! This website will primarily be helpful to you if you are working in OdysseyWare and trying to figure out how to complete the projects.
Jesse Putnam
Phone: 971-340-6197
E-mail: [email protected]
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
Modern science and your life
3/21/2013 - What if...?
If you haven't checked out the incredibly nerdy but fun new project by XKCD cartoonist Randall Munroe, you should. He answers some of the most outrageous "what if" questions you can imagine.
|
8/31/2012 - Size of the planets.
Check out this video which shows what the planets would look like if they were as close to us as the moon is. |
5/12/2012 - How deep is that really?
This picture shows the relative heights and depths of several things. Which can go deeper, a sperm whale or a submarine? Click on the picture (and then click on it again in the xkcd site) to expand it and find out.
Click on the picture to get a larger view.
11/10/2011 - Climate Change
Much has been said in recent years about climate change. This topic is controversial because there is a lot at stake. If the climate scientists are correct then we are likely bringing upon ourselves the sixth mass extinction in the history of our planet. The previous five were caused by natural phenomena, but this one would be caused by humans. However, if we radically adjust our society so as to forestall climate catastrophe this could have a temporary, but negative effect on our economy at a time when creating jobs seems to be of critical importance. Some people also fear that combating climate change would be spearheaded by government policy and would therefore lead to unwanted growth of government power, like what happened when FDR and the U.S. government dealt with the Great Depression.
But let's ignore politics temporarily and look at the science. The primary issue of concern right now is the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which reflects heat radiating away from the earth back toward the earth similarly to the way that a greenhouse allows radiation from the sun to penetrate and heat the greenhouse without letting convection carry that heat away. This keeps the temperature in the greenhouse higher than the outside temperature. No one disputes that carbon dioxide creates a "greenhouse effect," nor does anyone dispute that humans are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. What is disputed is whether or not human generated carbon dioxide is going to have a substantial impact on civilization. Most climate scientists say yes. Skeptics say no, usually arguing that carbon dioxide levels are still well within boundaries that are normal in the history of the world. So, who is right? To answer that questions, let's consider a couple of graphs.
This first graph was produced by climate change skeptics (geocraft.com, 2001). It shows the BIG picture. Going as far back as 600 million years, it allows us to see CO2 levels (black line) and global temperature (blue line). Graphs like these have been used to argue that carbon dioxide doesn't affect temperature that much and that the earth currently has pretty low levels of CO2 and low temperatures relative to the past. Because of this, climate skeptics say, we shouldn't worry much about CO2 levels right now. The problem with these arguments is that they don't take into account a few important details.
First of all, conditions on earth were radically different in the past. For example, during much of the time covered by this graph all the continents of the earth were combined into a "super-continent" called Pangea. As you know if you live in Oregon, coastal temperatures (say at Seaside) tend to be cooler than inland temperatures (like Portland). Since all the land at this time was "smooshed" together, Pangea had much less coastal area than today's continents and a much larger inland area, so it was naturally warmer. Another example is the atmosphere. Early in earth's history the atmosphere was mostly methane. Oxygen didn't survive in the atmosphere until about 2400 MYA (million years ago). Also, there were no animals (with the possible exception of sponges) on earth until roughly 541MYA, no trees until about 400 MYA, no land animals or birds before 300 MYA, and few mammals before 65 MYA. Even the sun, going through it's normal life cycle, has gotten brighter through the course of earth's history and is currently as bright as it has ever been. Comparing the climate conditions on earth under these radically diverse circumstances to the conditions on earth now is useful, but we must remember that it is like comparing apples and oranges. The best climate for things living back then may not be best climate for things living now.
Secondly, there were five unbelievably catastrophic mass extinctions of life during this period where most lifeforms on earth died out. These extinctions had different triggers, many of which we are unsure of, but they all seem to be tied to climate. The first two happened 440 MYA (million years ago) and 364 MYA and were associated with a temperature drop, likely due to a drop in CO2 levels. Looking at the above graph, you can see where these extinctions occurred. The third one (the granddaddy of them all) is called the Permian extinction and occurred 251 MYA, wiping out 95% of all life on earth. It was associated with a dramatic rise in CO2 levels and temperature (as you can see) caused by increased volcanic activity (perhaps triggered by an asteroid). The fourth extinction occurred in stages between 214 and 199 MYA as the super-continent Pangea began to break up and form our modern continents. This led again to volcanic outgassing and may have led to a brief (too brief to be seen on the graph) but catastrophic rise in temperature. The fifth (and most recent) mass extinction happened 65 MYA and killed the dinosaurs. We are almost certain this was caused by an asteroid impact in the gulf of Mexico and would have had temporary but substantial climate effects. Climate change skeptics argue that atmospheric conditions have fluctuated quite a bit in the past so we shouldn't worry about a little extra CO2 now. However, if we want to avoid a sixth mass extinction, we had better pay attention to what those atmospheric conditions produced in the past.
First of all, conditions on earth were radically different in the past. For example, during much of the time covered by this graph all the continents of the earth were combined into a "super-continent" called Pangea. As you know if you live in Oregon, coastal temperatures (say at Seaside) tend to be cooler than inland temperatures (like Portland). Since all the land at this time was "smooshed" together, Pangea had much less coastal area than today's continents and a much larger inland area, so it was naturally warmer. Another example is the atmosphere. Early in earth's history the atmosphere was mostly methane. Oxygen didn't survive in the atmosphere until about 2400 MYA (million years ago). Also, there were no animals (with the possible exception of sponges) on earth until roughly 541MYA, no trees until about 400 MYA, no land animals or birds before 300 MYA, and few mammals before 65 MYA. Even the sun, going through it's normal life cycle, has gotten brighter through the course of earth's history and is currently as bright as it has ever been. Comparing the climate conditions on earth under these radically diverse circumstances to the conditions on earth now is useful, but we must remember that it is like comparing apples and oranges. The best climate for things living back then may not be best climate for things living now.
Secondly, there were five unbelievably catastrophic mass extinctions of life during this period where most lifeforms on earth died out. These extinctions had different triggers, many of which we are unsure of, but they all seem to be tied to climate. The first two happened 440 MYA (million years ago) and 364 MYA and were associated with a temperature drop, likely due to a drop in CO2 levels. Looking at the above graph, you can see where these extinctions occurred. The third one (the granddaddy of them all) is called the Permian extinction and occurred 251 MYA, wiping out 95% of all life on earth. It was associated with a dramatic rise in CO2 levels and temperature (as you can see) caused by increased volcanic activity (perhaps triggered by an asteroid). The fourth extinction occurred in stages between 214 and 199 MYA as the super-continent Pangea began to break up and form our modern continents. This led again to volcanic outgassing and may have led to a brief (too brief to be seen on the graph) but catastrophic rise in temperature. The fifth (and most recent) mass extinction happened 65 MYA and killed the dinosaurs. We are almost certain this was caused by an asteroid impact in the gulf of Mexico and would have had temporary but substantial climate effects. Climate change skeptics argue that atmospheric conditions have fluctuated quite a bit in the past so we shouldn't worry about a little extra CO2 now. However, if we want to avoid a sixth mass extinction, we had better pay attention to what those atmospheric conditions produced in the past.
Because of the dramatic changes earth has seen in its long history it is important that we learn about the climate in the more recent past, during which time earth's geography, biology, and atmosphere has remained relatively constant. In Antarctica scientists have studied long columns of ice (called ice cores) that include layers of ice dating back almost 1 million years. This gives us a direct and reliable measure of gasses in the earth's atmosphere at those times because tiny bits of air were trapped in the ice when it froze (just like the bubbles in your ice cubes!) By analyzing this data we have produced graphs like the one at left. (Thomas Stocker, University of Bern, accessed from motls.blogspot.com). As you can see, there is a natural fluctuation in earth's temperature that rises and falls almost exactly in step with how much CO2 and methane are in the air. The most recent dip represents the last ice age, where most of the land mass on earth was covered with ice. As you can see CO2 levels in the recent past have never gone above 300 ppmv (parts per million by volume). If they did, what do you think would happen to temperature?
|
By looking at even more recent data we can answer that question. The graph at right shows what is happening to temperature (art.ccsu.edu, 2009). Both CO2 levels (blue line) and temperature (red line) are reaching unprecedented levels. CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is now well above the 300 ppmv mark (it's almost to 400!) and it is rising rapidly. We have pushed CO2 levels beyond anything earth has seen in millions of years and there is a substantial possibility that we have started a sixth mass extinction potentially as devastating (or more so) than the ones this planet has already seen.
If you are skeptical of what I have written here, I am glad. A good scientist should always be skeptical. However, I (and most scientists in the world) am arguing that there is substantial cause for concern. You should investigate this topic for yourself. If you still disagree, write to me and let me know where you think my logic or facts are misleading or unfounded.
If the public is not educated on climate change and able to draw logical, scientific conclusions then we will not be able to make the necessary changes. At this point you still may be less concerned about how global warming will affect you than about how efforts to combat global warming might affect you. The threat of climate change might not sound as bad as the threat of having to change your lifestyle to avoid climate change by paying more for energy, driving less, or eating mostly local foods in season. Facing the facts may negatively affect the economy or facilitate a government power grab under the guise of protecting us from climate change. These are valid concerns, but the longer we ignore the science, the less time we will have to deal with these other important issues as climate conditions worsen.
If you are skeptical of what I have written here, I am glad. A good scientist should always be skeptical. However, I (and most scientists in the world) am arguing that there is substantial cause for concern. You should investigate this topic for yourself. If you still disagree, write to me and let me know where you think my logic or facts are misleading or unfounded.
If the public is not educated on climate change and able to draw logical, scientific conclusions then we will not be able to make the necessary changes. At this point you still may be less concerned about how global warming will affect you than about how efforts to combat global warming might affect you. The threat of climate change might not sound as bad as the threat of having to change your lifestyle to avoid climate change by paying more for energy, driving less, or eating mostly local foods in season. Facing the facts may negatively affect the economy or facilitate a government power grab under the guise of protecting us from climate change. These are valid concerns, but the longer we ignore the science, the less time we will have to deal with these other important issues as climate conditions worsen.
6/17/2011 - The Biggest Dam
I hope you packed your scuba gear!
About 100 years ago damming rivers to create hydroelectric power was seen as one of the most important advances in human technology. Because of the mighty Columbia River, we in the Northwest get up to 80% of our electricity just from river water turning the turbines inside our dams. Woody Guthrie wrote a song about it in 1941. (The electricity Grand Coulee Dam created was “turning our darkness to dawn.”) Although in many ways dams are seen as a clean source of energy (no air pollution and they help us control flooding) we have discovered that they have drawbacks too. Mainly these have to do with disrupting river (AKA riparian) ecosystems and turning vast watersheds behind the dams into stagnant reservoirs. One recent problem associated with Bonneville Dam is that sea lions swim 150 miles in from the ocean and hang out by the dam to eat the salmon trying get into the narrow fish ladders. NOAA has just authorized the killing of these sea lions to try to protect the salmon, whose populations have already suffered because of the dams that are blocking their way upriver. In China, the recently completed Three Gorges Dam is now by far the largest dam in the world inundating nearly 400 miles of beautiful Yangtze River gorges and tributaries with its reservoir. On the plus side, it will help control the horrible flooding that has occurred on the river and provide almost as much electricity as all 14 dams on the Columbia River. However, it is expected to drive many animals to extinction, has covered up over 1000 archeological sites, and has forced over 1 million people to leave their homes. The entire city in this picture is now permanently under water!
Obviously there is a price we have to pay for every kind of large-scale power generation, but there are also many benefits. For example, if China wasn’t generating electricity with the Three Gorges Dam they would probably be building several more coal-fired power plants, which generate lots more pollution. China’s rapidly growing economy seems to have an endless hunger for electricity, but it is giving new opportunities to millions of poor people there. So if you were Hu Jintao, China’s communist president, would you be doing things differently? How?
Obviously there is a price we have to pay for every kind of large-scale power generation, but there are also many benefits. For example, if China wasn’t generating electricity with the Three Gorges Dam they would probably be building several more coal-fired power plants, which generate lots more pollution. China’s rapidly growing economy seems to have an endless hunger for electricity, but it is giving new opportunities to millions of poor people there. So if you were Hu Jintao, China’s communist president, would you be doing things differently? How?
5/9/2011 - To the moon Alice...for valuable moon dust
We all know that we are dependent on light from the sun for the energy that powers life. But, did you know that there is also energy that can be harvested from the moon? Moon dirt contains millions of tons of Helium-3 (something that is very rare here on earth) which can be used to power clean nuclear fusion for generating electricity. But there are a couple of problems. One is that we need to go to the moon and harvest the helium-3 and bring it back to the earth. Harvesting requires the processing of millions of tons of moon dust. But once we harvest it, just one load (25 tons) of Helium-3 on one of our space shuttles could meet all of our power needs in the U.S. for one full year! If many countries adopt this approach we could dramatically reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions around the world because we wouldn’t need those pesky fossil fuel power plants everywhere. But that brings us to another problem, at least for the United States. We are retiring our space shuttles after the last flight of space shuttle Atlantis this summer (Endeavor’s last flight is now scheduled for next week) and we have scaled back plans to continue space exploration because of the cost. So it doesn’t look like we will be leading the way back to the moon.
The strange thing about this is that it is rarely reported in the news. Russia already has a quality space program. China and India are developing their programs quickly and China has plans to land a person on the moon. (No human has been to the moon in 40 years.) It could be that governments all have plans to begin harvesting this energy source, but are trying to keep it a secret so that they don’t arouse too much competition. This video says there are over 100,000,000 tons of Helium-3 on the moon. The U.S. would only need 25 tons per year right now for all our electricity needs. At that rate it would last us for 4 million years. The whole world would only need about 125 tons per year at this point, which is just five loads on our space shuttles. So what do you think we should do? Should we leave the moon alone or should we invest money in trying to harvest this energy source? Would you like to see all the countries of the world work together to harvest helium-3 or should the countries that can harvest it efficiently bring it back and sell it to the rest of us?
The strange thing about this is that it is rarely reported in the news. Russia already has a quality space program. China and India are developing their programs quickly and China has plans to land a person on the moon. (No human has been to the moon in 40 years.) It could be that governments all have plans to begin harvesting this energy source, but are trying to keep it a secret so that they don’t arouse too much competition. This video says there are over 100,000,000 tons of Helium-3 on the moon. The U.S. would only need 25 tons per year right now for all our electricity needs. At that rate it would last us for 4 million years. The whole world would only need about 125 tons per year at this point, which is just five loads on our space shuttles. So what do you think we should do? Should we leave the moon alone or should we invest money in trying to harvest this energy source? Would you like to see all the countries of the world work together to harvest helium-3 or should the countries that can harvest it efficiently bring it back and sell it to the rest of us?
Copyright: Jesse Putnam