Being a chair (or co-chair in my case) has its advantages, too. I get to digest a lot of information on one topic, presented from diverse points of view. For example, in our session yesterday, we had representatives from the USGS, the San Diego Supercomputer Center and the British Geological Survey alongside staff from nonprofits doing outreach, people teaching high school and middle school kids, folks teaching online in Second Life, and lone geologists in geography departments. The projects were all exciting, there were some great visuals, and a whole bunch of new ideas.

In fact, it seemed like everything was new, just finished before the conference. Only two talks showed much in the way of statistics to illustrate how effective their projects were (at disseminating information, in those cases). I’m hoping that by the time the virtual globes session at AGU rolls around this year, there will be more testing and validation, and less of a need to impress the audience. Sure, it’s great to be wowed by new technologies. But do they work? Do they, for example, improve spatial cognition in undergrad geoscience majors the same way that field work does? Are they effective at reaching a broader segment of the population? How do we measure this?

Here’s my challenge to people who presented in our Digital Innovations sessions (myself included): start measuring. I think we’ve convinced people that what we’re doing has potential, and that we can do all kinds of great things with virtual globes, the web, blogs, etc. But like the song says: it ain’t what you do, but the way that you do it – that’s what gets results. I think we ought to take some cues from geoscience (and physics) education, in that our way forward now probably should have some evidence of results.

1. There seems to be a growing push for a sort of crowdsourcing in geology – harnessing the potential benefit of “many mappers” (Declan De Paor’s term). Kyle House alluded to this idea in terms of collaborations and the Nevada Digital Dirt project, Declan and Steve Whitmeyer will be testing it out in a field course, and Ian Jackson is trying to coordinate it on a global scale with OneGeology (link to the OneGeology portal – where all the cool stuff is going on – here). One of the coolest aspects of this is in disaster relief: Lee Allison mentioned the use of tweets, texts, and other rapid responses in evacuating people affected by typhoon flooding in the Philippines (see MapAction). I’m not sure where I stand on this – for some aspects of geology, complete crowdsourcing might be a catastrophe. Do I want the folks from the Creation Museum commenting on my 2.7-billion-year-old field site in Montana? But as far as crowdsourcing from geologists, it might be fun, unless it devolves into petty fights (as geology sometimes does – read Simon Winchester’s The Map that Changed the World). AGU’s Open Review seems a litle like this, only for publications, not maps.
2. Mentoring via Twitter: Declan and Steve, always at the forefront of technology, are also trying to get geoscience faculty members to mentor field camp students via Twitter. As far as I could tell, the proposal was for students to tweet from the field, and for profs to comment. Which professors? Any professors. Is anyone here going to be up in the middle of the night when students are doing their field work in Ireland? I’m curious to see if he gets buy-in on this from faculty. The idea seems a bit idealistic: I don’t see much in the way of compensation for the faculty involved. On the other hand, it would definitely help to get comments in the field, in real time, from people who knew more then me. I’d have learned a whole lot more (and with less pain) in field camp if that had been an option. And I’d love to be able to tell the YBRA students visiting the Stillwater a bit about all those awesome igneous textures…
3. Declan, again: “reading a map [without seeing the geology in front of you] is like reading sheet music without hearing the orchestra.”
4. Ron Schott’s MegaGigaExtravaganza – I think that and “The Ron Show” were what we were calling his presentation when we were planning the session – had plenty of oohs and aahs despite technical glitches. Some amazing GigaPan photos of Mount Rainier, lahar sirens in Orting, and other local features. But the most astounding thing, to me, was how well the geology of Mount Rainier showed up when draped over the topography. It’s really rather simple (Kyle described draping as “freeing part of your mind up to think about the geology”), but I was totally bowled over by how well the difference between the lavas and the Tatoosh pluton stood out. You could immediately visualize how the volcanic edifice was built on top of a (mainly) plutonic foundation. This immediate intellectual payoff is an excellent reason why virtual globes – as opposed to full GIS – should be something we show our students!
5. I was in pretty much the same room all day. There was an environmental magnetics session in the ballroom in the morning, which was attended by the presenters and about five other people. I’m just starting to get back into the field after several years of non-research work, and it made me sad to come back to a discipline that didn’t look as energetic as it did while I was in grad school. This was through no fault of the chairs or the presenters: there were some totally fascinating talks, including some by up-and-coming students, that might really have piqued the interest of folks from outside the rock/paleo/geomag community. And I think I may have found one or two new collaborations because of the session. But, as far as I could tell, there was pretty much no one outside of our little mag-”club” in the room. Of course, it could be that it was Sunday morning, the first morning of the conference. But I couldn’t help feeling a little marginalized.

Anyway: join us for more of the Web-2.0 fun tomorrow at 1:30-5:00 PM in rooms B117/118/119 for the next installment of Technical Session T160: From Virtual Globes to Geoblogs: Digital Innovations in Geoscience Research, Education, and Outreach. And then 8PM at the Tugboat for beer with the geobloggers! (You might have to pull me out of Powell’s first…)

Here’s a preview of what I’m working on:

As environmental science instructors, we like to hope we can get our students to see local environmental issues in the same context we do. This is often difficult to do. Google Earth, however, has a few tools that make it easier to put local issues in a broader context. I’m going to use an exercise I’ve been developing as an example of how to do this. Along the way, I’ll be sharing the tools that allowed me to construct this exercise, so that the idea can be adapted to other locations and other environmental issues. The tools include both features within Google Earth (e.g. historical imagery) and outside (e.g  GDAL/OGR). This is what I’ll be presenting as a poster in session T160 on Tuesday (see also: T160 talks on Monday) and answering questions about in session P6 on Sunday.

I haven’t yet figured out the rest of my schedule. I know I’ll be going to the session on environmental magnetism on Sunday AM (it just happens to be in the same room as ours is later in the day…) and Josh F.’s talk on obsidian. I hope to catch up on some of the near surface/applied geophysics goings on, too. Any suggestions?

Also, apparently there’s a geobloggers’ meetup, though I forget where and when. Sunday night, I believe. The Digital Innovations group was thinking of springing for beer at our session to foster the same sort of interaction, but costs spiraled out of control. So, off to the pub after the session, I guess.

Google Earth imagery with Station fire burn area as of 9/1/09 (red). Station Fire perimeter from GeoMAC Fire Team.

Unfortunately, I could tell from the map that one of my favorite places to go hiking as a kid, Millard Canyon, has burned. Two firefighters died higher up in the San Gabriels, near Mt. Gleason. Some homes  have burned near Mt. Wilson (E of this view) and in the Sunland/Tujunga area (NW of here). So far, though, the damage in the area pictured here has been less than people had feared. The news reports were talking a lot about the La Vina development in Altadena. La Vina wasn’t a name familiar to me, even though the development shows up in the Google Earth image – it’s near the left side, just above the words “West Ravine.” It turns out it’s just one canyon over from where I went to summer camp. Looking at Google Earth’s historical imagery revealed why I’d never heard of La Vina: it wasn’t around when I lived there.

Google Earth historical imagery (May 1994) with Station fire burn area as of 9/1/09 (red). Station Fire perimeter from GeoMAC Fire Team.

This kind of development at the urban-wildland interface brings up all kinds of issues I like to talk about when I teach geohazards: What factors determine fire risk? What are the tradeoffs we make when choosing whether to suppress fires? What are the socioeconomic issues that come up when people decide to build at the urban-wildland interface? Should we be developing there at all?

The socioeconomic issue is one that students often overlook. Many of these houses are very expensive (think about the view!), and the residents of LA county pay good money to protect them: how much does it cost to rent a 747 full of flame retardant? Census data put the upper quartile home value in this block group as ~$300-500K, so – thinking cynically – there’s a lot of tax base to protect. You real geographers out there can ding me on which stat and aggregation I used (I got the data from Stanford’s GCensus project)… I’m not sure my interpretation is right, though I’m fairly sure I can’t afford a house in La Vina (Zillow shows prices way out of the range of an assistant professor’s salary). And I really don’t think so cynically: I have at least one friend who lives near there, and I’m very glad they’re safe.

Google Earth image (October 2007) with Station Fire perimeter and census block groups colored by upper quartile home value.

These issues are all covered, though not from a fire point of view, in John McPhee’s essay “Los Angeles versus the Mountains” in The Control of Nature, which I have students read. Not coincidentally, the geographic setting of McPhee’s essay is not far away (just a few miles E) from the location of this image. I urge you to check out the construction from 1994-2007 in the Pasadena Glen area, where McPhee did some of his interviews.

Anyway, don’t let any of this discussion minimize the human side of fire damage. People are putting their lives on the line down there. I meant this post to show how a personal concern might lead to awareness of some larger issues. I guess that when I teach a class like geohazards, my goal is to give students to tools to make the same discovery – though I never really thought about it until I did it myself.

Thanks to Samantha Weber for the link to the GeoMAC page!

We are pleased to announce a pair of sessions at the 2009 GSA meeting in Portland, Oregon that should be of interest to those using digital technologies in geoscience research, education, and outreach. Descriptions of the Pardee keynote symposium and the related topical session are below.

Abstract submission for the topical session is now open. The submission deadline is August 11. We are looking particularly for case studies of geoscience or geoscience education projects advanced by the digital collaboration, visualization, and data dissemination tools outlined below. Research on the effectiveness of these technologies in geoscience education is also welcome.

P6. Google Earth to Geoblogs: Digital Innovations in the Geosciences, Sun., 18 Oct., 1:30–5 p.m.

Cosponsors: GSA Geoinformatics Division; GSA Geoscience Education Division; Google, Inc.; National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT)

Conveners: P. Kyle House, University of Nevada, Reno, Nev.; John Bailey, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska; Ronald C. Schott, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kans.; Mano Marks, Google Inc., Mountain View, Calif.; Glenn A. Richard, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, N.Y.; Peter A. Selkin, University of Washington, Tacoma, Wash.

Description: Digital technologies such as Web 2.0 services, virtual globes, and new applications of digital photography can enhance understanding of geology at all levels and across all disciplines. This session will highlight particularly novel and innovative applications of these technologies.

T160. Digital Innovations in Geoscience Research, Education, and Outreach.

Cosponsors: GSA Geoinformatics Division; GSA Geoscience Education Division; Google, Inc.; National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT); GSA Geology and Society Division

Conveners: Peter A. Selkin, University of Washington, Tacoma, Wash.; Glenn A. Richard, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, N.Y.; John Bailey, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska; P. Kyle House, University of Nevada, Reno, Nev.; Ronald C. Schott, Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kans.; Mano Marks, Google Inc., Mountain View, Calif.;

Virtual globes, various means of online collaboration, and novel applications of digital images can significantly enhance geoscience research, education, and outreach. This session will highlight particularly innovative examples.

It’s not just a fun demo. It’s not just a narrative. – Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google

Looking W along the Vema Fracture Zone

It sure is spooky down here. The lighting is obviously unrealistic, which is good (you wouldn’t be able to see this at all if you were in Alvin!). Cool effect with the waves on top.. though the wavelengths would also have to be unrealistic for them to look like this so far away – kind of gives you the impression that the ocean is smaller than it is. The bathymetry is blocky, which illustrates our lack of knowledge of the ocean floor, even in places where people have done a lot of surveys.

Looking up Monterey Canyon

Placemarks, people? There are very few location labels, etc. visible below the ocean surface, which makes it hard to navigate. Obviously, placemarks are few and far between, since the layers were just rolled out. Here’s hoping that users will develop some good ones. And how do you turn off those damn fake waves? I’d love to replace them with temperature or surafce wave data, drape a bottom sediment type map over this bathymetry, put some water column chemistry or plankton profiles in as placemarks… this could be really cool! Also, this area has even better-surveyed bathymetry than the VFZ… and it’s still blocky compared to the land topography. Just goes to show you.

Monterey Bay from above

French Polynesia

Layers with a conservation theme. Much of the material in the default layers has a conservation theme, which makes sense with Google’s push for socially responsible uses of Earth. Given the conservation focus, it might make sense to port Bonnie’s and my marine protected area simulation (to be published any minute now in TIEE) to Google Earth. There are a few science-themed layers (SST, buoy observations) along with expeditions (which?), shipwrecks, and water sports. There could be a lot more science here, but I guess that’s up to us scientists!

A few issues: My placemark images don’t work. Might just be me – I still need to restart. Also, clicking on some placemarks automatically zooms out and to their antipode! For example, clicking on Palmyra Atoll zooms out to… the middle of Africa. Presumably this is to show an overview of marine conservation areas worldwide, but this is confusing. This isn’t Lost – we shouldn’t have to guess where we are.

Beyond the lineup at the event, I think the location of the announcement may be significant. The California Academy of Sciences’ new Renzo Piano-designed building not only looks cool and has a LEED Platinum rating, but it’s designed to hold a museum that integrates the sky, land, and oceans. Could the museum’s design have inspired the design of the hypothetical Google Ocean? I hope so.

So: beyond updated ocean floor imagery, what, exactly, would Google Ocean be? Stefan Geens at Ogle Earth speculates:

…Considering how a combined land and ocean dataset might be problematic from a realism perspective for Google Earth (after all, the oceans aren’t empty), it could well make sense to add another separate dataset, in addition to Google Sky and Google Earth. You could then switch between Google Earth and Google Ocean for a certain view, much as you can now switch to Google Sky.

From an environmental perspective, I’m not sure that the separate-view idea makes a whole lot of sense. Say you were interested in protecting coral reefs, which are not only in danger from whole-ocean problems (e.g. acidification) but also from harmful fishing practices (with dynamite and cyanide) and local pollution (e.g. eutrophication).  If you wanted to advocate for the protection of a particular reef, you’d want to show the locations of undersea coral reefs alongside the land-surface locations of fishing operations, sewage outfalls, etc. Google has made a point of highlighting environmental advocacy efforts like this on land  – see, for example, what Rebecca Moore and NAIL did for logging, or the Appalachian Mountaintop Removal layer in Google Earth.

Being able to see both land and sea synoptically makes scientific sense: A marine geologist might want to look at the ridges and trenches of the ocean floor juxtaposed against the mountains and coastlines of the continents. A coastal engineer might want to look at shore protection at the same time he/she sees what’s on the ocean bottom just offshore. Ecological interactions between land and sea, for example in wetlands, can be pretty important. A lot of Google Earth’s (and virtual globes’, and GISs’) allure to the scientific community stems from the ability to overlay geographic information from a variety of disciplines. It seems to me that, if the oceans were only visible separately from the land (as Google Sky is), we’d lose this ability. Given the interactions between Googlers and scientists at AGU, I think the Google geo team is smarter than that.

The location of the February 2 announcement, then, may be a clue to how Google Ocean might look. I think – I hope, at least – that users will be able to “dive into” Google Ocean from the standard Google Earth view rather than view Ocean separately from Earth. The exhibits at the Cal Academy let visitors do this to a certain extent. One of the highlights of the Cal Academy’s new building is a huge coral reef tank, which you can see from above or from reef-level. Above the reef tank, huge banks of floodlights provide the light necessary for coral growth. Not only do the lights mimic sunlight, but they surround the dome of the planetarium – two links between sea and sky right there. I’m imagining a photo op with Googlers, oceanographers, and environmentalists in front of the coral reef tank.

The museum’s design mimics Google Earth in other ways. On the other side of the building, the rainforest exhibit lets visitors climb from the top of the rainforest canopy to beneath the flooded forest roots. My photo on the “About” page was taken in a glass tunnel below the flooded rainforest exhibit. Again, the museum’s model integrates different levels of Earth’s  environment.

So here’s what I’m hoping for on February 2:

1. An ocean that you can dive into from the standard view of Google Earth
2. Earth features visible from under the ocean and vice-versa.
3. A realistic ocean:
1. Real ocean floor topography
2. Marine layers that can be turned on and off
3. Ocean surface imagery that can be made transparent/translucent
4. Overlays, placemarks, and images that can be placed at depths below sea level and viewed “under sea”

The new Cal Academy building is way cool, by the way. You should go.

http://schwehr.org/blog/archives/2009-01.html#e2009-01-20T22_05_40.txt

Kurt’s KMZ file showing the location