Where on (Google) Earth #31?

This one’ll be short and sweet. It’s a gopherball. Drive it out of the park.

You know the drill:

Where on (Google) Earth #31

The landform(s) is/are pretty obvious, but feel free to elaborate on the geologic/tectonic setting if you can.

I doubt this one will make it through ’til dawn.

Good night and good luck!

Where on (Google) Earth #29?

Sorry for those of you who might have been looking for a quick fix. After the breakneck pace of WoGE numbers 26, 27, and 28 I wanted to find a more remote spot to see if I couldn’t slow things down a bit. I don’t think this will be as challenging to find as #25, but who knows?

Here we go:

Where on (Google) Earth #29

Also an oblique anaglyph (which actually does give away more than the overhead view, if you know what you’re looking for):

Where on (Google) Earth #29 oblique anaglyph

And finally, an anaglyph flythrough movie (22M wmv – sorry Mac fans). Why? Because I can! Get out those red/blue glasses!

I personally don’t know much about the geology of this area, besides what I can see of the basic landforms. There appear to me to be a couple of interesting ones you don’t always see side by side.

Happy Hunting!

Where on (Google) Earth #25?

Uh-oh, Yami’s going into withdrawal symptoms because I’ve been slow to post a new WoGE entry after solving Sabine’s WoGE #24. He he he…

I have to admit that I had a site picked out yesterday and could have posted then, but I wanted to sleep on it. And this morning when I got up I decided to finish Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World, so I’m just finally getting back in and checking the geoblogosphere. What can I say, lazy summer weekends rock!

I hope some of you have been using the down time to prepare and submit abstracts for my GSA Topical Session T140: Geosciences and Web 2.0 – Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Web Video. Abstract deadline is Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at midnight Pacific time. I know Google Earth is not specifically in the title of the session, but I’m certainly open to considering it within the broad reach of “Web 2.0″ (whatever that means). (And I’ve still got one invited speaker position to offer if you’ve got anyone you’d like to recommend – let me know.)

So with no further ado, here’s the fix:

Where on (Google) Earth #25

And because I’m pretty sure it won’t give away anything that the map view won’t, I’ll throw in an oblique view for free:

Where on (Google) Earth #25

As always, I’m as interested to hear your explanation of the geology of the image and the reasoning behind how you discovered it as its location.

Happy Hunting!

[P.S.] Super Bonus: Got a pair of red/blue anaglyph glasses? Here’s the oblique view as an anaglyph:

Where on (Google) Earth #25

Where on (Google) Earth #23?

Well, I decided to observe a day of radio silence yesterday, but now that that’s taken care of we’re back to the races with Where on (Google) Earth #23:

Where on (Google) Earth #23

I suspect this will be an easy one for some of you since this shot presents nothing like the geological/geographical subterfuge of WoGE #22, so just to make things a little more interesting (and educational) I’d like to suggest that you hold your answers until you’ve got a geological explanation to go along with the location – also, it is generally good form to explain the reasoning that guided your search for the location. There are at least two distinctive geological features that deserve explanation in this image. This one shouldn’t be too tough – the more detail in your explanations the better! As always with my WoGE posts, bonus points for citing an article in the geological literature that describes the geology portrayed in the image.

Happy Hunting!

Where on (Google) Earth #21?

Holy mackerel! Brian goes on vacation and the Where on (Google) Earth? series makes the jump to light speed. We’re gonna double (triple?) his number of WoGE posts before he gets back if we keep up this pace. Yikes!

I don’t know if this one will slow things down, but having “dune” away with Yami’s WoGE #20 I suppose it’s up to me to try to stump you all again with #21. Given how fast Dr. Lemming dispatched with my last “stumper” I’m not overly optimistic about slowing this train down.

So with no further ado, here’s Where on (Google) Earth #21:

Where on (Google) Earth #21

No more mister nice guy oblique images to help you out this time, Dr. Lemming. :-(

There are however, bonus points available for explaining how the missing vegetation is related to the geology of the region. Super bonus points for illustrating your answer with photos/figures. (By the way, the super bonus points on WoGE #16 are still unclaimed!)

Finally, at Brian’s suggestion I’m working on a Google Earth network link that compiles the results of all previous (and future) WoGE posts. You’ll find it here: http://ron.outcrop.org/kml/WoGE.kmz (Under Construction – currently just a folder, not a network link – reload for updates).

Where on (Google) Earth #16?

I’ve greatly enjoyed Brian‘s Where on (Google) Earth? series of posts and I’m glad he’s agreed to serialize it. Since I just dispatched Chuck’s mysterious meanders, I figure it’s my turn to try to stump the assembled geoblogosphere.

So, in the traditional manner here’s Where on (Google) Earth #16:

Where on (Google) Earth #16

And because it’s Google Earth and not Google Maps we’re working with, I’ll throw in an oblique view for free:

Where on (Google) Earth #16

But wait! That’s not all you get. For bonus points please identify the landforms present and their geologic origin. Super bonus points for citing a publication in the geological literature that describes the origin of the landforms at this location. (And if you’re one of the authors of that paper, kindly let everyone else have a fair chance before your pride overflows.)

Wikis and Geology

Wikipedia Logo
Yesterday evening at Apparent Dip Thermochronic commented on an EOS article by Mark Moldwin et al., Wikipedia’s Role in Science Education and Outreach, about the importance of geoscientists reviewing and correcting Wikipedia articles in their areas of expertise in light of the predilection of many web-native students to turn to Wikipedia as a primary (and too commonly, a sole) source when researching geologic topics. At Highly Allochthonous Chris Rowan chimed in on the topic, too. To understand my reaction you should read these articles first. I’ll wait.

My initial reaction is that I’m glad all three of these pieces took a pragmatic approach to the situation and encouraged scientists to use Wikipedia in a positive manner – that is, to update and correct scientific articles because of the positive effect that this will have on scientific literacy among the general populace. With this notion I most wholeheartedly agree.

However, all three articles echo the widely held sentiment that it’s a shame that today’s students are using Wikipedia and other Internet sources instead of traditional printed sources for research. I tend to agree that Wikipedia is less than optimal as a primary reference in many cases and certainly don’t have any pity for students who use it as a sole source. But my inclination is not to blame students for their impulse to search online. In fact, I feel that students should have every right to expect to be able to use the internet to search for accurate scientific information. The shortcoming in this approach is not, IMHO, on the part of the web-native students, but on the part of publishers and scientists who fail to make reliable information readily available in an online format. Mind you, I’m not excusing students who fail to seek multiple, peer-reviewed, and primary sources or fail to critically assess what they find online (or in print) – shoddy work is shoddy work regardless of the format of the source material. Nevertheless, the web was designed for sharing scientific information. Why aren’t we, as scientists, taking better advantage of that?

Ironically, the very EOS article that sparked this particular discussion is illustrative of the point. Chances are that unless you are a subscriber to EOS you were not able to read the article linked above, because the primary source is locked behind a paywall on the AGU website. One could, of course, go to a library and find a paper copy of it, but is it really worth the effort? (Did you?) What’s that you say, your library doesn’t subscribe to EOS? What if the library is closed? Will you remember to go back there tomorrow? You’d probably read it right now, while it’s interesting to you, if you could just follow the link, but the barrier that AGU has erected to the general public (and many scientists) is probably sufficient to prevent most people from reading that article. Was that the intent of the authors? I doubt it.

And the same access restrictions apply to the of the bulk of the scientific literature – the primary sources we want our students to be critically evaluating – especially in geology. Is it any wonder that geology departments are being closed at some shortsighted universities because we have such a challenging time recruiting majors, when we scientists, however unintentionally, do so much to restrict access to the discoveries of our field of study?

So what can we do about it? Well, editing Wikipedia articles to improve their coverage and accuracy is certainly a great start. Peer review is critical to the scientific method and, interestingly, it is inherent in the wiki style of publishing. True, anonymous editing makes Wikipedia articles susceptible to the vagaries of decidedly non-scientific “peers”, but this can be overcome, to an extent, by restricting edits to those who take responsibility for their contributions by putting their name and reputation on the line. This sort of responsible authorship has worked very successfully for scientific wikis such as OpenWetWare.

GeoWiki Logo
I have begun a project to use the same wiki software run by Wikipedia to begin a geology-focused wiki, GeoWiki. My motivation for creating this resource began with my search for a way to create a free and open textbook. I have begun by using GeoWiki as the centerpiece for my Geomorphology class this semester. My thinking is that by seeding the wiki with articles from Wikipedia (why reinvent the wheel?) and having my students work to augment, modify, clean up, and organize the articles in at least one topic area we can demonstrate the potential of this sort of an effort to the community of geoscientists. It is my fervent hope that other geoscientists (this means you!) will see the value of such a resource and will contribute their time and effort as they become aware of the project. I have chosen licensing terms with the intent that material developed for Geowiki can be exported back into Wikipedia, as well. If you are interested in learning more about this effort or want to contribute, just send me an e-mail and I’ll establish an account for you.

This effort will likely be one of the things that I present about at GSA Topical Session T140: Geosciences and Web 2.0 – Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Web Video.

Geology News via Google Reader

Since I began teaching during my final years as a graduate student in the late nineties I’ve been using a webpage to supplement my teaching. One of the things I’ve always striven to do is to include a “Geology in the News” box on my class webpages, to make the subject more tangible for those not accustomed to thinking about the role of geology in our daily lives.

Early on, that news box was just one more part of an entirely hand coded website, and I would post a new item every week or two, on average. Within a few semesters I was using phpBB on my homegrown websites in order to add a discussion component to the class. “Geology in the News” blurbs were, of course, excellent discussion board fodder.

Since coming to Fort Hays State University, I’ve modified my class websites to fit into the Blackboard template that the campus supports. By using Blackboard I was able to offer a password protected gradebook and automated quizzes (good); Blackboard’s Discussion Board feature replaced phpBB for discussions (good and bad); and Blackboard’s frames-based navigation system replaced my own PHP template-based system (ugly). The core webpages, including all of my lecture notes, syllabus, schedule, homework pages, etc. were all still my own HTML based external pages.

Starting in Fall 2005 I began using a WordPress blog to generate an RSS feed for lecture podcasts. At the same time I used the blog as a new avenue to post “Geology in the News” stories. I sensed that what I really wanted to do was to incorporate an RSS feed directly into my course homepage, but I couldn’t figure out any elegant hack to do this. (I’d still love to do this, if anyone knows a good method.)

The solution that I’ve been hoping for manifested itself at the end of the Fall 2006 semester. Sometime late last year I switched from Bloglines to Google Reader as my primary RSS aggregator. While I miss the ability to share my feeds publicly, Google Reader added one particular feature that was absolutely perfect for embedding a “Geology in the News” style box into my class webpage: the embeddable Shared Items “linkblog”. Just a little snip of Javascript allows me to embed this selected list of shared items (mine are all geology related) on my current Intro Geology webpage (a version stripped of its Blackboard shell). Now it’s a simple matter of clicking “Share” on any RSS item that comes through my feeds and “Poof!” it automatically shows up on my “Geology Picks” news box (also available as a webpage and an RSS feed). It takes practically no effort at all and I’ve now got ten to twenty new geology related items per day cycling through a box on my class webpage. And the best thing is that it’s spurred a good deal more discussion on a wider range of geologic topics on the Discussion Board for that class (which Blackboard won’t let me share – grrrrrr!).

If you’re interested in using my feed in your own page don’t hesitate to do so! If you need assistance in getting it set up, just ask and I’ll see what I can do. If you want to set up your own I’d also be glad to help. And if you’ve got an RSS feed or Google Reader Shared Items feed of your own that covers geology I’d love to hear about it!

GSA Topical Session T140: Geosciences and Web 2.0 – Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Web Video

Yup, that’s right… I’ve gone and volunteered to chair a topical session at GSA this fall in Denver.

Professional geologists, geoscience educators, and interested amateurs explore the ways that “Web 2.0″ technologies are currently being used, and how they might be leveraged in the future, to build richer online community in the geosciences.

Web 2.0 technologies – and I intend to interpret that fairly broadly – are changing the way that networked communities interact and share information on the internet today. I want to use this session to bring together those of us who are already experimenting with these technologies in the geosciences to discuss our successes and failures and our ideas for the future. The session will necessarily follow GSA’s format for an oral session, but I would like very much to gather all of the speakers and interested parties into a less formal “unconference” type discussion, if possible.

Look for information on submitting abstracts in the April edition of GSA Today. And please ping me in the comments if you’re interested in participating, even if its not with a talk.