Le Nom de jou et Pomme D'api
How can we measure the qualities and desirability of a finished recipe both qualitative and quantitative in order to determine the success of our recipe experimentation?
To determine the success of our recipe we must first have a control to relate to. Therefore we have a 'normal' that we can compare all of our experiments to. Then we must track all of the changes we do in our experiment, this way we know exactly what is causing a certain thing. For example in one of the cakes we changed the amount of flour and type of yogurt, and kept track of it. We then put it out with the control and had people taste each of them and tell us which they liked better. With this information we knew exactly which cake was more preferable and what we had done to make it that way.
To determine the success of our recipe we must first have a control to relate to. Therefore we have a 'normal' that we can compare all of our experiments to. Then we must track all of the changes we do in our experiment, this way we know exactly what is causing a certain thing. For example in one of the cakes we changed the amount of flour and type of yogurt, and kept track of it. We then put it out with the control and had people taste each of them and tell us which they liked better. With this information we knew exactly which cake was more preferable and what we had done to make it that way.
In what ways is cooking like doing science and in what ways are they different? How are a cook and a food scientist similar or different?
Cooking and science are very similar. They both take a list of ingredients, or reactants, and mix different ratios of them to create a product. As well as, they both use and require an amount of experimentation in order to make a product reach the desirable outcome. The difference between these are that a cook looks at what makes a delicious product and focuses solely on finding this, while a scientist is more curious as to why something they've created is the way it is.
Cooking and science are very similar. They both take a list of ingredients, or reactants, and mix different ratios of them to create a product. As well as, they both use and require an amount of experimentation in order to make a product reach the desirable outcome. The difference between these are that a cook looks at what makes a delicious product and focuses solely on finding this, while a scientist is more curious as to why something they've created is the way it is.
Energy and the Environment
- If I had to rank my sources from “most reliable” to “least reliable” I would put CNRM-CM5 first because they referenced some pretty credible climate scientists. I would put HadGEM2 and NCAR UCAR CESM next because they came from some pretty credible climate change studies. I would rate Onthesnow.com last because the information came from a “.com” website and “.com” website are not always that reliable.
- I believe that CNRM-CM5 is a secondary source because they cite some climate scientists. I believe that HadGEM2 and NCAR UCAR CESM were primary sources because they seemed to be the direct study without listing any citations. I belive that Onthesnow.com is a secondary source because it lists the resorts that it gets its data from and those resorts collect the data themselves.
- My understanding of the relationship between combusting fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect, and climate change is that we combust to many fossil fuels that the earth can keep up with and all of the excess stuff from theses fossil fuels gets trapped by the atmosphere and somewhat thickens it. This causes the “greenhouse effect”, which is basically that this new thick atmosphere acts as a greenhouse. It lets lets heat from the sun in, yet it doesn't let it out and it's causing the earth to heat up. And all of this trapped heat is causing the earth to get hotter and is messing with the climates. Making places that were once cold, hot and disrupting the balance of things. This causes climates to change.
- Scientists and engineers seem to be one of the main causes of human evolution (in recent history). Without them we would have not had the medicine we have today, or the houses, or even phones, TVs, and electricity. These people have created the modern humans. Really the only downside of this is that humans have become more lazy and because everyone is living longer the earth is become plagued with over population of human. There is also the fact that when we create all of the houses and new technologies like cars we are also causing things like pollution and deforestation and we aren't really caring too much about the earth anymore and we're starting to take it for granted, sooner or later the good and healthiness of the earth will be gone and we will be the blame.
- With innovation and a goal towards developing new clean energy and reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the environment we could make some real progress, and perhaps dig us out of this hole we created. To come up with new ways of doing things you need new ideas, and new ideas come from innovation. Therefore innovation is the starting point to a solution.