Field Notes III: Chapter 4

I didn't come across any evidence in this chapter that was particularly compelling or irrefutable.

Kolbert shows that the behaviors and locations of butterflies, mosquitoes, and frogs are changing, and that Darwin believed that these sort of changes in species were a result of climate change. So what? This is all speculative and circumstantial evidence for the big, bad global warming that Kolbert is trying to prove.

Just because the climate may be changing and affecting various animals, does not mean that it will be catastrophic (especially since it has happened before), and it certainly doesn't mean that it is the fault of the human race.

Kolbert also makes an effort to convince her readers that climate change will wipe out many of the Earth's species. Again, the evidence she provides of this is simply the speculations and worst case scenario theories of researchers that Kolbert came to trust because she found them quirky and endearing.

Kolbert has offered a possible scenario for the future; however, she has offered no evidence that it will necessarily happen, and given no compelling reasons to suggest that her proposed scenario is any more likely than another scenario.

When I first started the book I enjoyed Kolbert's anecdotes, and inclusion of excess information, but at this point I'm sick of it. It's annoying to have to read pages and pages of babble just to get to the point. If I were interested in the camouflage of butterflies and mating rituals of frogs, I would read a book devoted to that. It is also hard to keep up with Kolbert's impromptu changing of topic. I think she has severe and untreated Attention Deficit Disorder.

Field Notes II: Chapters 2-3

If I were a member of a jury assembled to determine whether or not the defendant, global warming, is guilty of being a real and serious danger to society, and if Kolbert's book were the evidence presented by the prosecution, I would have to find the defendant guilty.

The most persuasive pieces of evidence for me are the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses and the defendant's long and documented history of concerning behavior.

Keogak's moving testimony plays on the heart strings of the jury when he says, "It was good at the start--warmer winters, you know--but now everything is going so fast...Our children may not have a future. I mean, all young people, put it that way. It's not just happening in the Arctic. It's going to happen all over the world. The whole world is going too fast."

Kolbert also has a sort of poetic way of demonstrating the way in which the defendant has infiltrated the daily lives of its victims when she states, "Then, a few years ago, for the first time, people began to see robins, a bird for which the Inuit in this region have no word."

Kolbert also does a fine job of combating the notion that fear of global warming is the product of a recent, yet popular, scientific folly. She does this by evoking the research of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, whose research eluded to global warming over a century ago.

That being said, I feel that Kolbert's case is that of the prosecution, with little defense, which does make her biased. Though she makes a great case, the fact remains that global temperatures have fluctuated before with little explanation, and scientists admit there are aspects of global warming that they do not fully understand. Though Kolbert does mention these holes in her case, she does not explore the possible implications of them.

I am not critical of Kolbert's biased because I think she has every right to feel the way she does. She did her research and has come to her own conclusion. As I said before, based on the prosecution's case, I would find the defendant guilty. However, it would be unethical for any jury to come to a verdict without hearing the defense's case, which i feel is absent from Kolbert's book.

As far as the writing quality and journalistic aspects of Kolbert's book, I think she has done an excellent job. It is clear from her inclusion of anecdotes and irrelevant, yet interesting background information that she has thoroughly researched her topics. More than that, she demonstrates a sincere curiosity and respect for her sources, which only strengthens her case.

Field Notes

It seems to me that the author has taken some writing risks with this book. Perhaps that is because she is writing a journalistic BOOK and not an article with a word limit, or perhaps it is because different literary devices are needed to successfully write a book versus a magazine or newspaper article; I don't know...

Firstly, I've noticed that a certain subtle, cynical sense of humor comes through in the writing at times. I suppose this isn't a huge risk; although, it is an interesting choice considering the serious nature of the book's topic. I actually do like that the author has done this, but it is something that immediately caught my attention. Here is an example of what I mean:

"The Soviets more or less invented the study of permafrost when they decided to build their gulags in Siberia."

Secondly, the author seems to have little use for transitions between paragraphs. It's as if she has allowed the random flow of her thoughts to determine the order of her paragraphs. Frankly, I'm not sure if this is a poor choice or a genius one.

Lastly, I am appreciative of the amounts of seemingly unrelated, yet colorful detail that the author has chosen to include in her story. For example:

"It turned out that he had brought the Tostitos to stave off not hunger but fatigue--the crunching, he said, kept him awake--and by now the enormous bag was more than half empty."

Typically there is simply not room for this kind of excess information in an article; although, I have often found myself wishing to include information of this nature in my own stories.

Meteor, Meteoroid, Meteorite: What's the Difference?

It wasn't until I took my first astronomy class in college that I learned that a meteor, meteoroid, and meteorite are not the same thing. Previously I had supposed that "meteor" was short for the word "meteorite," which to me was simply a rock from outer space. I also speculated that the term "meteoroid" was a sort of geeky nickname for the same rocks, since adding "oid" to the end of any word makes it sound like it's associated with little green men from a distant planet. While it is true that all three terms refer to a space rock, they can not be used interchangeably. Each term has it's own specific meaning and appropriate usage.

Firstly, the website Solar Views explains that the term meteoroid is reserved for matter in outer space which revolves around our sun. Of course, however, not everything that revolves around the sun is a meteoroid. "A meteoroid is matter revolving around the sun or any object in interplanetary space that is too small to be called an asteroid or a comet. Even smaller particles are called micrometeoroids or cosmic dust grains, which includes any interstellar material that should happen to enter our solar system," reads the site.

Though this explanation makes sense, it raises the question, "what's an asteroid?" The website ktvb.com explains, "A meteoroid is anything from the size of a grain of sand up to a boulder. Anything bigger than that is considered an asteroid. "

OK, now what is a meteor? Well, the term "meteor" actually refers to the reaction that occurs when a falling meteoroid passes through Earth's atmosphere. The website Space Today explains that, "Meteors are the streaks of light associated with the burning of small chunks of rock or interplanetary debris [meteoroids] as they arrive in Earth's atmosphere from space." Just to clarify, the actual space rocks/debris are the meteoroids, and when they contact our atmosphere, they create meteors. "A sky-watcher under a dark clear sky might see a few [meteors] per hour on an average night. On the other hand, during one of the annual meteor showers, a sky-watcher might see up to 100 per hour," reads Space Today.

Now come the meteorites. According to Space Today, "A meteorite is a meteoroid large enough to survive the fall to Earth's surface." Basically, space debris can only be meteoroids while they are in outer space. Once they touch Earth's soil, they technically become meteorites.

How did the domestication of cats come about?

If you have a pet cat, you may often wonder, as I do, how such a playful, affectionate, and generally easy to live with creature could have evolved from the feral feline beasts that lurk in the jungles of Africa and Asia. Even my utterly domestic cat, who knows no predators and has never had to hunt a day in his life, has painfully sharp teeth and claws that he not only knows how to use, but that he rather seems to enjoy using at times. So how did humans and cats end up forging such a docile relationship? How did these fierce hunters end up in our homes?

According to the informational domestic cat website, boutiquekittens.com, interactions between cats and humans go way back. The bones of cats have been found next to the bones of humans, dating back to the Stone Age. "It is unclear what kind of relationship they had – possibly the cats were just drawn to the food and warmth of human settlements, but didn’t hang around longer than it took to forage scraps," reads the site.

It was the Egyptains, however, that first documented a relationship between humans and cats. According to the aforementioned website, "Tomb scenes dating from 1540 BC showed that cats played a large part in everyday Egyptian life." There is agreement among researchers that the Egyptians were the first to domesticate wild cats into house pets; however, it is unclear exactly when this happened. The website unexplainable.net says, "There is no exact date that one can conclude when the cat was domesticated in Egypt, but researchers believe that the act took place around 2000 BC. Researchers have tried many times to pinpoint a date when the domesticated cat emerged, but ancient Egyptians did not indicate the differences between wild and tame cats in their records. Interestingly, the Egyptians had one word to refer to a cat (miu or mii), which translates into 'he or she who meows.' "

The species of cat that Egyptians befriended was the African Wild Cat, or Felis Libyca, according to unexplainable.net. This species is, "one of the closest wild relatives of the modern cat, explains the site, adding that it was slightly larger than today's house cats, and, "had yellow-gray fur, striped markings, and a long tail that tapered off." Though these cats (pictured at right) are undoubtedly less intimidating than a lion or tiger, they are still very much wild, carnivorous, and territorial. So how did they make their way into the hearts and homes of Ancient Egyptians?

It seems the Egyptians actually appreciated the felines' predatory nature rather than fearing it. Unexplainable.net explains that, "The villages of ancient Egypt faced a number of poisonous snakes, rats and mice that attacked food supplies within the households and snuck into the village granaries. The wild cat would come into the villages and hunt down the vermin, ridding the community of one of their number one threats. Some researchers theorize that the Egyptians would leave pieces of food out to bring in more wild cats."

The website Freerepublic.com explains further the popular theory that the Egyptians eventually allowed the wild cats into their homes because the cats became known as pest controllers, rather than pests themselves. Once the cats became familiar with human surroundings and realized that humans were not a threat to them, "[they] allowed themselves to be tamed and raised their kittens in a human environment. As soon as the Egyptians began supplying the cats with food, thereby significantly changing their diet, and breeding them for certain characteristics, the cats were domesticated. They were perfect pets-playful, intelligent, affectionate and helpful to the farmers who sustained life in ancient Egypt," reads the website.

As a result, the Egyptains came to consider the cat to be a very sacred animal. Freerepublic.com points out that the Egyptains actually went through the trouble to mummify some cats, and it even became popular to name children after the cat. "Many Egyptian parents named their children after cats, especially their daughters. Some girls were called Mit or Miut," states freerepublic.com

Very few purely wild African Wild Cats still exist in the world today, according to South Africa Explored. The site explains that, "Pure genetic stock of the African Wild Cat is today only found in remote areas [of Africa and the Middle East]. Elsewhere interbreeding with domestic cats has taken place." Still, it is quite likely that the cat you share your home with (if you share your home with a cat) is a descendant of an African Wild Cat domesticated by the Ancient Egyptians. Unexplainable.net points out that much of the characteristic aloofness of modern house cats was inherited from their wild ancestors.

Article critique

I enjoyed the article "Stephen Hawking is Making his Comeback" from Discover magazine. It especially sparked my interest because I've taken some astronomy classes and I enjoy learning about the cosmos. However, I can see how someone that doesn't know much about the topic might find the article long and complicated. At the very least, it was a well-written biographical tribute to an interesting man.

Lede: I give the lede a 17 out of 20. It drew me in and was somewhat creative, but there's room for improvement.

Content: The content was great. The author obviously did his research and was able to convey an essence of Hawking and his ideas to readers. 20 out of 20.

Organization: I was also very impressed with this aspect of the article. There is so much info in the article, and I'm sure when the author sat down to write, he really had to wrap his mind around everything he wanted the article to say. He was able to get it all down in a logical way. 20 out of 20.

Writing Style: I enjoyed the style. It managed to be authoritative and conversational at the same time. 19 out of 20

Clarity: I didn't have too much trouble understanding the science in the article, but I have a bit of astronomy background. I think some of the science in the article is over a lot of people's heads. The author tries to explain things in simple terms, but concepts such as singularities, event horizons, and quantum uncertainty can take some time to wrap your head around. 15 out of 20.

Why are flamingos pink?

Flamingos are known for their brightly colored pink feathers, but the truth is, they are actually born white. But how does this happen? After all, unless you're Micheal Jackson or a chameleon, you must learn to live with the skin, feather, fur, or scale color you are born with. But flamingos have options. If they don't fancy their white feathers, they can simply eat themselves pink, giving a whole new meaning to the phrase, "you are what you eat."

According to Cecil Adams of the website The Straight Dope, flamingos eat a diet high in carotenoid compounds. The most well known of such compounds is probably Beta Carotene, which is found in a variety of vegetables including carrots. "Carotenoids tend to be a persistent red orange in color," explains Adams. "Depending on formulation, they impart a red, pink, orange, yellow, or even green cast to some plants and to the higher links in the food chain by which those plants are consumed."

Though it is unlikely to see a flamingo snacking on a carotenoid packed broccoli stock or a carrot, flamingos are big fans of brine shrimp, and brine shrimp are big fans of algae, which contains carotenoids. In short, the shrimp act as carotenoid carriers for flamingos. Catherine Side explains on the African Conservation Foundation website that when flamingos ingest shrimp the carotenoid chemicals, "are not broken down and have extremely low water solubility, [so] they are deposited in the feathers of flamingos."

So what happens when flamingos don't get their recommended dose of carotenoids? They turn white. R.P Dales of the University of London explains on the African Conservation Website, that when the birds shed their feathers (a habit known as moulting), they shed the pink pigment also, so if that pigment is not replenished via carotenoid consumption, the flamingos will become pale.

Interestingly enough, flamingos are not the only animals whose hue comes from their food. "The pink color of some other birds, such as spoonbills and the pink ibis, is also due to carotenoids," says Dales. In addition, Adams points out that, "Salmon caught in the wild are orange because of their diet of crustaceans that contain carotenoid. The flesh of farm-raised salmon, which don't feed on crustaceans, is an unappetizing gray unless the fish are given the carotenoid astaxanthin."

So are human skin pigments affected by carotenoids? According to Adams, they certainly can be. "If [humans] eat enough carrots (which, duh, contain carotene), they'll turn orange," he says. "And if they have no interest in eating vegetables but would still like to be orange, they can take beta carotene pills providing 10 to 30 times the normal dietary amount."