I recently was on Facebook and saw a post from the Amazing Geologist's page sharing an article from Geology IN titled "What kind of Skills are Essential to Be a Geologist." You can find the article at the following link: http://www.geologyin.com/2016/05/what-kind-of-skills-are-essential-to-be.html.
The author of this article lists the following skills as essential to a geologist: observation, analysis, equipment, and applications. Although I agree that all of those skills are important to a geoscientist, I differ in opinion that those are essential skills. The reason the author may have listed these skills as essential could be based on the subdiscipline in geology they study.
I wanted to offer my opinion on the essential skills every geoscientist should have. I base these skills not only on my personal experiences but also on my interpretation of the definition of a geologist according to the United States Department of Labor. On their website (link), they define a geoscientist as scientists who "study the physical aspects of the Earth, such as its composition, structure, and processes, to learn about its past, present, and future."
The essential skills are as following:
1. Outdoor Enthusiast
2. Observation
3. Analysis
4. Communication
1. Outdoor Enthusiast: One part of the original article that I completely disagreed with, under the section titled equipment, the author wrote: "geology is a lab-oriented discipline." I believe that geology is an outdoor or field-oriented discipline, although, I don't disagree that geoscientists spend most their time in the lab. Ask any geoscientist, and I am confident 95% of them would prefer to be outside doing field work instead of working in the lab. The reason I believe geology is a field-oriented discipline is because hypotheses are formulated based on the observations of the natural world viewed in the field. If a hypothesis is formed in the lab, the results are often tested against what happens in the real world, which is observed in the field. Because hypotheses are formed based on field observations, a geoscientist should enjoy hiking, camping, and just, in general, having a basic understanding of outdoor safety.
2. Observation: This is a skill that I agree with the previous author, and I believe is important to all science disciplines. The more detail that one can observe, the better chance they have of being able to develop questions and hypotheses that explain that observation. It is not just being able to make detailed observations, it is also important for a scientist to be able to document these observations in a clear and organized manner so that the person, or more importantly future scientists can come and view and understand your observations.
3. Analysis: This is another skill that I agree with the previous author, and I believe is important to all science disciplines. Once observations are made, questions are asked, hypotheses are made, and a scientist needs to be able to analyze the data to answer the questions or provide an interpretation. One could argue that the more money a scientist has, the more equipment the scientist has access to, the better a scientist might be able to answer a question, emphasis on might. What I believe is important with analysis, however, is having a basic background knowledge of the question, and/or, knowing where and how to obtain the basic background knowledge to answer a question. A good scientist is never going to know everything about a subject.
4. Communication: Again, this another skill that I believe is important to all science disciplines. A scientist should be able to effectively communicate their research. This goes beyond just being able to publish in peer-reviewed journals. A scientist should be able to write effective grant proposals, which often means providing a succinct explanation of your research and the questions to be answered. A scientist should be able to present their research in both oral and poster presentations of varying lengths. For example, at professional meetings, oral presentation maybe 10 minutes long, whereas in an invited talk you may be asked to present for 50 minutes. Lastly, it also important for a scientist to be able to explain their research to the general public. A scientist may be asked to share their research with a general science magazine, a TV show, or a local newspaper. In all cases, the scientist should be able to explain the main points of their research and interpretations in layman terms.
I am sure as I continue with my geoscience career I will change and/or add essential skills.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Unusual Structures? I Think Not
A while back I was on Facebook and I admittedly clicked on an article that was obvious click-bait. I forget what the article was titled, but the purpose of the article was showing unusual objects visualized in Google Earth. One image, in particular, caught my interest, and I will share a similar image below. Note the square objects in close proximity.
Because of my love with browsing through Google Earth, I found more images in other locations that showed a similar pattern! Again please note the square objects.
I am sure at this point some people are thinking "These features are not unusual objects, I know what they are!" I will admit, I knew what these objects were as soon as I saw the original image on that article. I remember laughing and saying: "these aren't unusual objects, they are drilling pads!"
In particular, these drilling pads are located in locations where hydraulic fracturing is occurring to access petroleum in tight rocks such as organic-rich mudstones. The images in descending order are from the Permian Basin in New Mexico, Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, Utica Shale in Ohio, Haynesville Shale in Louisana, Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas, Eagle Ford Shale in Texas, and the Barnett Shale in Texas.
These pads are constructed to accommodate the drilling rig and all the associated equipment with drilling and completing of a well. In the first image, the drilling pads are so close together because the operator is trying to access all the hydrocarbons that they can. When one well is finished drilling and completing, they move the rig over to the next pad and drill again. I am making an assumption here, but I would guess that all those wells are vertical wells, and that is why they are so close together. A new method is now being used where multiple wells are being drilled from a single well pad. These wells are horizontals that will project in different directions. The advantage is reducing costs as well as the overall footprint because you only need one pad instead of multiple. Some of the other pictures may be showing the multipad technique, and this is why the pads are further apart from each other. Another reason the pads may be further from one another is because of the topography of the land. Well placement is important for several reasons, one of which is avoiding areas with large slopes. Drillers want to drill in areas of flat ground because it is easier and cheaper to build the drilling pads. In locations such as Pennslyvania and Ohio where you are more likely to have rolling hills, the pads will always be further apart than in areas in Texas where the topography is mostly flat.
In conclusion, everyone can rest easy because these structures are not the work of aliens or a government doing something they shouldn't.
 |
| Image was taken in New Mexico |
Because of my love with browsing through Google Earth, I found more images in other locations that showed a similar pattern! Again please note the square objects.
 |
| Image was taken in Pennsylvania |
 |
| Image was taken in Ohio |
 |
| Image was taken in Louisiana |
 |
| Image was taken in Arkansas |
 |
| Image was taken in Texas |
 |
| Image was taken in Texas |
In particular, these drilling pads are located in locations where hydraulic fracturing is occurring to access petroleum in tight rocks such as organic-rich mudstones. The images in descending order are from the Permian Basin in New Mexico, Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, Utica Shale in Ohio, Haynesville Shale in Louisana, Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas, Eagle Ford Shale in Texas, and the Barnett Shale in Texas.
These pads are constructed to accommodate the drilling rig and all the associated equipment with drilling and completing of a well. In the first image, the drilling pads are so close together because the operator is trying to access all the hydrocarbons that they can. When one well is finished drilling and completing, they move the rig over to the next pad and drill again. I am making an assumption here, but I would guess that all those wells are vertical wells, and that is why they are so close together. A new method is now being used where multiple wells are being drilled from a single well pad. These wells are horizontals that will project in different directions. The advantage is reducing costs as well as the overall footprint because you only need one pad instead of multiple. Some of the other pictures may be showing the multipad technique, and this is why the pads are further apart from each other. Another reason the pads may be further from one another is because of the topography of the land. Well placement is important for several reasons, one of which is avoiding areas with large slopes. Drillers want to drill in areas of flat ground because it is easier and cheaper to build the drilling pads. In locations such as Pennslyvania and Ohio where you are more likely to have rolling hills, the pads will always be further apart than in areas in Texas where the topography is mostly flat.
In conclusion, everyone can rest easy because these structures are not the work of aliens or a government doing something they shouldn't.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Recognizing different views regarding climate change
Every once and awhile I will Google the terms "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" to read up on the latest news being presented about this issue. Today I came across an article called "Civil War on the left, Part 28: Varieties of Climate Change Thinkers." The article was about a chapter in a new book by Berkely Physicist Richard Muller called "Energy for Future Presidents." In this chapter, the author gave a classification of different climate change views.
I was excited to see this classification because in the news you commonly only hear about the two extremes which are the alarmist and the denier. According to the author the alarmist "pay little attention to the details of the science. They are "unconvincibles." They say the danger is imminent, so scare tactics are both necessary and appropriate, especially to counter the deniers. They implicitly assume that all global warming and human-caused global warming are identical." The deniers "pay little attention to the details of the science. They are "unconvincibles." They consider the alarmists proposals dangerous threats to our economy, so exaggerations are both necessary and appropriate to counter them."
The other categories include exaggerators, warmists, lukewarmists, and skeptics. I will let you read the description for each of these categories, but I think they sound pretty accurate when it comes to different views. I have trouble voicing my opinion on climate change because in the past when I raised questions, I felt I was automatically lumped into the denier category. I was shamed by people for reading views that were in the denier category, even though I tried to explain I was trying to understand the arguments of both sides.
Check out the categories and remember that next time you discuss climate change with someone that not everyone believes in the extreme views.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/civil-war-on-the-left-part-28-varieties-of-climate-change-thinkers.php
Here is an earlier dated article discussing the same thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-classifications-of-cl_b_9729598
I was excited to see this classification because in the news you commonly only hear about the two extremes which are the alarmist and the denier. According to the author the alarmist "pay little attention to the details of the science. They are "unconvincibles." They say the danger is imminent, so scare tactics are both necessary and appropriate, especially to counter the deniers. They implicitly assume that all global warming and human-caused global warming are identical." The deniers "pay little attention to the details of the science. They are "unconvincibles." They consider the alarmists proposals dangerous threats to our economy, so exaggerations are both necessary and appropriate to counter them."
The other categories include exaggerators, warmists, lukewarmists, and skeptics. I will let you read the description for each of these categories, but I think they sound pretty accurate when it comes to different views. I have trouble voicing my opinion on climate change because in the past when I raised questions, I felt I was automatically lumped into the denier category. I was shamed by people for reading views that were in the denier category, even though I tried to explain I was trying to understand the arguments of both sides.
Check out the categories and remember that next time you discuss climate change with someone that not everyone believes in the extreme views.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/civil-war-on-the-left-part-28-varieties-of-climate-change-thinkers.php
Here is an earlier dated article discussing the same thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-classifications-of-cl_b_9729598
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Science and Politics
I am inclined to discuss my quick views on science and politics because of a recent text I received from a friend informing me of an article on fracking that has been retracted due to mathematical errors. This post is not meant to discuss this article directly, but I will quickly summarize the main points. The conclusions of this published article showed that air pollution levels increased in locations near gas extraction sites. After the publication was released the authors discovered there were errors in their spreadsheet used to calculate the air pollution concentrations. I have to say that in this case the authors absolutely did the right thing and informed the journal of their errors. A new article will be published that show basically the exact opposite results from the original study.
The topic of science and politics is tricky to discuss because people tend to really dig their feet into the ground when it comes to their political views. Two topics that I know that come up a lot between my friends and the news is fracking of rock in the petroleum industry and climate change. I think a huge problem is people tend to ignore or dismiss facts and instead back their political views. What I am trying to say is that often there are gray areas between the two views. I will give an example of the petroleum industry. One view is that we should extract all fossil fuels in the ground to provide energy to the world. The opposite view is that we should leave all fossil fuels in the ground because they are dirty fuels that are ruining the Earth and should invest completely in renewable energy. One could argue that the facts support that a combination of fossil fuel energy and renewable energy should be used to support our growing demand for energy. Discussions can be made about how much and where we get this energy, but that is beyond the scope of this example. I promise you though that I have friends who believe in either one view completely or the other. The facts are though that using all fossil fuels will not be good, and we currently do not have the capability of switching to renewable energy tomorrow without any use of fossil fuels.
My main point with science and politics is that a good scientist should keep their political views/funding from a certain group out of their conclusions. I am sure to all scientists this suggestion seems like a no-brainer, but I am not so sure it happens. If you asked the question does "air pollution increase due to fracking," and your research suggests otherwise, a good scientist should publish their results no matter what. This is why I am very glad that the paper that is be retracted is being republished with a different conclusion. Perhaps it isn't the conclusion they or their funding agency were hoping for, but it is still a result and should be published regardless. To not publish the new conclusions would be hurting the integrity of science.
There is one other point I wanted to discuss. One phrase that I absolutely despise that everyone has heard regarding climate change is "the science is settled." I am infuriated when my very educated scientist friends use that statement. Science is never settled, that is the beauty of science! If we always agreed the science was settled nothing new would ever be discovered. Instead, we are constantly testing and retesting similar hypotheses with new methods or new data to see if the original conclusion is still supported. Instead of using that statement, a phrase that could be used is: "A large majority of scientists agree that an overwhelming amount of data support an increase in global temperatures." In my view the original phrase makes it seem like no changes can be made to this conclusion, which is absolutely not the case.
The topic of science and politics is tricky to discuss because people tend to really dig their feet into the ground when it comes to their political views. Two topics that I know that come up a lot between my friends and the news is fracking of rock in the petroleum industry and climate change. I think a huge problem is people tend to ignore or dismiss facts and instead back their political views. What I am trying to say is that often there are gray areas between the two views. I will give an example of the petroleum industry. One view is that we should extract all fossil fuels in the ground to provide energy to the world. The opposite view is that we should leave all fossil fuels in the ground because they are dirty fuels that are ruining the Earth and should invest completely in renewable energy. One could argue that the facts support that a combination of fossil fuel energy and renewable energy should be used to support our growing demand for energy. Discussions can be made about how much and where we get this energy, but that is beyond the scope of this example. I promise you though that I have friends who believe in either one view completely or the other. The facts are though that using all fossil fuels will not be good, and we currently do not have the capability of switching to renewable energy tomorrow without any use of fossil fuels.
My main point with science and politics is that a good scientist should keep their political views/funding from a certain group out of their conclusions. I am sure to all scientists this suggestion seems like a no-brainer, but I am not so sure it happens. If you asked the question does "air pollution increase due to fracking," and your research suggests otherwise, a good scientist should publish their results no matter what. This is why I am very glad that the paper that is be retracted is being republished with a different conclusion. Perhaps it isn't the conclusion they or their funding agency were hoping for, but it is still a result and should be published regardless. To not publish the new conclusions would be hurting the integrity of science.
There is one other point I wanted to discuss. One phrase that I absolutely despise that everyone has heard regarding climate change is "the science is settled." I am infuriated when my very educated scientist friends use that statement. Science is never settled, that is the beauty of science! If we always agreed the science was settled nothing new would ever be discovered. Instead, we are constantly testing and retesting similar hypotheses with new methods or new data to see if the original conclusion is still supported. Instead of using that statement, a phrase that could be used is: "A large majority of scientists agree that an overwhelming amount of data support an increase in global temperatures." In my view the original phrase makes it seem like no changes can be made to this conclusion, which is absolutely not the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)