Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: agu.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to agu.org.

Comments · 331

  1. Setting the record straight by APODNereid · · Score: 1 · on Aftermath of Distant Planetary Collision?

    It is a true synthesis of all of the natural sciences, but what it concludes is that plasmas in space are being mathematically modeled incorrectly. And this is where people tend to turn off. In plasma-based cosmologies, plasmas are electrodynamic entities that, like in the lab, respond with electrical resistance and luminosity to changes in their charge density. In conventional cosmologies, astrophysicists *assume* that plasmas are "perfect conductors", they *assume* that space is "quasi-neutral" -- that a given volume of space essentially has equal numbers of positive and negative charges -- and they *assume* that magnetic fields are "frozen-in place" within a plasma (as opposed to being affected by the mechanics and electrodynamics of the plasma itself).

    The concept of "magnetic reconnection", for instance [...] has never been validated within a laboratory despite being discussed for decades now. And importantly, there is no reason for why we cannot validate magnetic reconnection within the lab.

    If asked to guess, I'd say you wrote this without critically thinking about it, and certainly without investigating the work of the scientists who study the Earth's magnetosphere and the IPM (inter-planetary medium).

    Last month, the AGU (American Geophysical Union) held its Fall 2007 meeting in San Francisco. I think I recall reading that some 15,000 people attended.

    Just from the titles of the sections (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm07/?content=program&show=glance), I'd guess that this would have been an extremely important meeting for all Plasma Universe/Electric Universe groupies - 'Atmospheric and Space Electricity', 'Planetary Sciences', 'Solar and Heliospheric Physics', 'Magnetospheric Physics', and so on.

    Within Solar and Heliospheric Physics (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&sec=SH) it would seem there were quite a few sessions that would have been of intense interest to you. Some examples:

    SH41C - Magnetic Reconnection in Laboratory, Magnetospheric, and Solar Plasmas I (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&part=SH41C&maxhits=400), with such sessions as:
    * "Causes and Consequences of Reconnection in the Laboratory" (abstract is here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSH41C..06P), and,
    * "Experimental merging, coalescence, reconnection, and bouncing of two flux ropes" (abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSH41C..07I - note that the six authors seem to work in the same lab as Peratt; interesting, don't you think?)

    SH44A - Magnetic Reconnection in Laboratory, Magnetospheric, and Solar Plasmas IV Posters (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&part=SH44A&maxhits=400), which featured posters with such interesting titles as:
    "Magnetic reconnection with multiple X-lines in an open system: Two fluid simulations with finite electron inertial effects"
    "Breakdown of the Frozen-in Condition and Plasma Acceleration: Dynamical Theory"
    "Self-regulation of the reconnecting current sheet in relativistic pair plasmas"
    "Fast Reconnection in Electron-Positron Plasmas via Turbulent Outflow Jets"
    "Universal Method for Describing Magnetic Reconnection"

    From a different pln2bz comment:

    Nereid, you seem to think that I *really* care about responding to your interruptions. But you present nothing for my mind to chew on. You are little more than a pest to

  2. Setting the record straight by APODNereid · · Score: 1 · on Aftermath of Distant Planetary Collision?

    It is a true synthesis of all of the natural sciences, but what it concludes is that plasmas in space are being mathematically modeled incorrectly. And this is where people tend to turn off. In plasma-based cosmologies, plasmas are electrodynamic entities that, like in the lab, respond with electrical resistance and luminosity to changes in their charge density. In conventional cosmologies, astrophysicists *assume* that plasmas are "perfect conductors", they *assume* that space is "quasi-neutral" -- that a given volume of space essentially has equal numbers of positive and negative charges -- and they *assume* that magnetic fields are "frozen-in place" within a plasma (as opposed to being affected by the mechanics and electrodynamics of the plasma itself).

    The concept of "magnetic reconnection", for instance [...] has never been validated within a laboratory despite being discussed for decades now. And importantly, there is no reason for why we cannot validate magnetic reconnection within the lab.

    If asked to guess, I'd say you wrote this without critically thinking about it, and certainly without investigating the work of the scientists who study the Earth's magnetosphere and the IPM (inter-planetary medium).

    Last month, the AGU (American Geophysical Union) held its Fall 2007 meeting in San Francisco. I think I recall reading that some 15,000 people attended.

    Just from the titles of the sections (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm07/?content=program&show=glance), I'd guess that this would have been an extremely important meeting for all Plasma Universe/Electric Universe groupies - 'Atmospheric and Space Electricity', 'Planetary Sciences', 'Solar and Heliospheric Physics', 'Magnetospheric Physics', and so on.

    Within Solar and Heliospheric Physics (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&sec=SH) it would seem there were quite a few sessions that would have been of intense interest to you. Some examples:

    SH41C - Magnetic Reconnection in Laboratory, Magnetospheric, and Solar Plasmas I (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&part=SH41C&maxhits=400), with such sessions as:
    * "Causes and Consequences of Reconnection in the Laboratory" (abstract is here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSH41C..06P), and,
    * "Experimental merging, coalescence, reconnection, and bouncing of two flux ropes" (abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMSH41C..07I - note that the six authors seem to work in the same lab as Peratt; interesting, don't you think?)

    SH44A - Magnetic Reconnection in Laboratory, Magnetospheric, and Solar Plasmas IV Posters (http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm07&part=SH44A&maxhits=400), which featured posters with such interesting titles as:
    "Magnetic reconnection with multiple X-lines in an open system: Two fluid simulations with finite electron inertial effects"
    "Breakdown of the Frozen-in Condition and Plasma Acceleration: Dynamical Theory"
    "Self-regulation of the reconnecting current sheet in relativistic pair plasmas"
    "Fast Reconnection in Electron-Positron Plasmas via Turbulent Outflow Jets"
    "Universal Method for Describing Magnetic Reconnection"

    From a different pln2bz comment:

    Nereid, you seem to think that I *really* care about responding to your interruptions. But you present nothing for my mind to chew on. You are little more than a pest to

  3. The Confluence Project is used this way by Terje+Mathisen · · Score: 2, Informative · on Online Collaboration Creates 'Map-Making For the Masses'

    The Confluence Project http://confluence.org/ is an international effort to perform a systematic sampling of the Earth's surface, i.e. all those locations where both longitude and latitude has integer values.

    So far more than 10,000 visitors have documented more than 5,000 of these points.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027768.shtml is a link to a paper by a Japanese researcher (Koki Iwao) and his associates: They have used the DCP information to check/verify the quality of the various land cover databases:

    Which parts of the Earth is mountains/lakes/forests/rice fields/grassland/etc.?

    What they found is that the best of these databases have a hit ratio of just 60% or less.

    Terje
    (Scandinavian DCP coordinator)

  4. That's good, but... by zippthorne · · Score: 1 · on NASA Snaps Mysterious "Night-Shining" Clouds

    Well how about something a little less biased ?

    Here's a hint: If your solution to <Problem X> involves global socialism and isn't <people suffering needlessly while resources exist to alleviate it> then you're probably a little too invested in your solution to be trusted about the severity of the problem.

    Similarly, if your solution involves reduction of productivity without even attempting to address the problems inherent in the inevitable reduction of available goods, you're probably also going to be ignored.

  5. That's good, but... by zippthorne · · Score: 1 · on NASA Snaps Mysterious "Night-Shining" Clouds

    Well how about something a little less biased ?

    Here's a hint: If your solution to <Problem X> involves global socialism and isn't <people suffering needlessly while resources exist to alleviate it> then you're probably a little too invested in your solution to be trusted about the severity of the problem.

    Similarly, if your solution involves reduction of productivity without even attempting to address the problems inherent in the inevitable reduction of available goods, you're probably also going to be ignored.

  6. Re:Miscalibrated by Ambitwistor · · Score: 4, Informative · on Floating Computers Keep an Eye on the Oceans

    Were these the same floats that initially indicated that the oceans were *cooling* and not warming, but which were later recalibrated to report "accurate" temperature data? Yes.
  7. Re:i've always said by liquiddark · · Score: 1 · on Antique Fridge Could Keep Venus Rover Cool

    Mars lacks...water? Really? Given the body of research which indicates it has permafrost, I think you may want to check your facts.

  8. Re:summary... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1 · on Antarctic Ozone Hole Shrinks 30 Percent

    To hear some talk, the issue is close. It is how they say it is and it can never be different. Oh yeah? Who?

    But "if" they have been explored and we are not exploring them again, I am sure that there are way that haven't been explored. I've seen papers on the subject as recently as last year; I'm sure it's still under some investigation.

    With new data, there most certainly "could" be a way not yet explored. That is certainly true.

    If the variations in the hole are effecting the wind patterns and bring warmer air to the poles more frequently then in the past, then not only could there be a warming effect at the poles, but the cooling effect of the wind patters moving there could be effected too. Yes, wind patterns are affected by the ozone hole. It causes a cooling effect in the stratosphere, and has not been found to have much of an effect in the troposphere.

    Plus, the Ozone basically filters certain radiation from the sun before it hits the lower levels of the atmosphere and the ground. This extra radiation could be contributing more then we think. I cannot seem to find any studies or synopsis of studies with a few quick google searches so it leads me to believe there aren't many. Here is one starting point; look at the papers it cites and the ones that cite it.

    Have they been shown to be wrong? Mostly, yes. There are certainly debates over how strong the CO2 contribution is, but the idea that it's not a major contributor isn't really credible anymore.

    All I usually see if people getting pointed to sites like real science and stuff where they show something to be wrong with old outdated information. RealClimate, you mean, and they are not outdated; indeed, some of their analyses have later become published comments.

    Things like the famous Mann hockey stick graph had been shown to be cherry picking data to get the graph to look the way it did That's not really true. You say it as if there was a deliberate deception, for instance. Mann had an error which, when fixed, led to pretty much the same hockey stick shape — as verified by independent panels of scientists and statisticians ... not to mention the other researchers who, using different statistical methods, also got hockey stick graphs.

    and the math error that had the warmest period on the last century in the last few years instead of 30, 50 and 80 years ago. The warmest period in the last century is still in the last few decades, worldwide. You're referring to the U.S. trend, and there the most recent decades were pretty much tied both before and after the correction.

    But all the studies using data from these flaws would have a margin of error too. The studies using those data are not much changed, if you look at what the changes actually are.

    So it is difficult to tell who is creditable and who is not. I think you need to read more about what actually happened.
  9. Re:not much historic data on hole by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1 · on Antarctic Ozone Hole Shrinks 30 Percent

    The Ozone Hole is not related (Or considered to be) to Global Climate Change... Different topic. There are some relationships, but climate change is not a dominant cause of the ozone hole, and the ozone hole is not a dominant cause of climate change.

    But still there is the question of how to reduce it. Saying Americans cant use cars is out of the option, Who is saying that?

    or just focusing on Cars and not on homes which admit more CO2 then Cars do on the average. Power generation and industry are the largest contributors to CO2, so solutions should focus on those.

    Perhaps we should focus less on our increasing carbon use and more on Carbon Reduction Like Tree Planting. [...] I know where I am right now there are acres of field that can be replaced with trees and a lot of abandoned farm fields that could be reforested. Might be helpful in the tropics, but probably not in temperate regions. See, e.g., here.

    I think terrestrial vegetation only takes up 1/4 of human CO2 emissions — and that's for all the vegetation in the world. You'd need a lot of reforestation to really make a dent (and it only takes the carbon out of the air temporarily until the trees die).
  10. Re:religion by Alsee · · Score: 1 · on Creationists Silence Critics with DMCA

    Assuming it's all true, well done sir.

    Thanks. The "assuming it's true" is clearly just "rigorous in scientific caution" rather than an active challenge, but I'll be "rigorous" in return backing up my post for you and for anyone who may have been actively skeptical.

    I think I read most of the stuff about the foraminifera evolutionary record a long time ago in dead-tree format, but I googled a couple of links to back up the general issue. Ok, I probably went overboard on the links... oh well :)

    PhD Paul Pearson writes:
    In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin lamented that the imperfection of the fossil record detracts from the glory of geology. Fossilization is such a rare and capricious event, our collections are so poor, and sedimentary formations are so full of gaps, that Darwin could not point to a single example where fossils in successive geological strata showed evolution from one species to another.
    Unknown to Darwin, uninterrupted sedimentation does occur in the open ocean, especially on aseismic ridges and plateaux. These areas experience a continuous rain of particles to the sea bed, and are among the most geologically quiescent places on Earth. A steady build-up of sediment is the result.
    Now, after thirty years of systematic ocean drilling, many of these sites can be studied. Piston coring generally allows hundreds of meters of sediment to be fully recovered, spanning millions of years of deposition. Where gaps occur, they can easily be identified.
    []
    The sediments in question are composed mainly of the shells of microscopic plankton such as foraminifera, radiolaria, diatoms and coccolithophorids. Large numbers of individuals can easily be extracted. Their evolution can be followed through geological time, simply by comparing one closely spaced sample with the next.

    In describing his work in non-linear dynamics in evolution, PhD Timothy Patterson comments:
    Due to their exceptional fossil record, planktic foraminifera are ideal for studies of evolutionary processes.

    PhD student Nadia Al-Sabouni
    Institute of Micropalaeontology
    Biodiversity and evolution of planktonic foraminifera
    Google cache of missing PDF:
    Planktonic foraminifera have the best fossil record of all organisms, spanning the
    last 150 million years. Owing to the completeness and continuity of their fossil
    record, planktonic foraminifera can be used as model organisms to study patterns
    of evolution at time scales that are not replicable under laboratory conditions.

    A science paper from 40 years ago:
    Rates of Evolution in Some Cenozoic Planktonic Foraminifera
    William A. Berggren
    Micropaleontology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Jul., 1969), pp. 351-365
    doi:10.2307/1484931
    Link to first page
    I'd copy/paste the Introduction first two paragraphs, but it's a jpeg scan of the text. Click and read.

    Testing the Molecular Clock Using the Best Fossil Record: Case Studies from the Planktic Foraminifera
    multiple authors
    Abstract near bottom of this page
    Since many major groups (e.g. birds, mammals, reptiles) have a poor fossil record, it is often difficult to test and refute these limitations. Planktic foraminifera represent an exception to this rule. Deep-sea sediments are super-abundant in foraminifera, and large numbers of specimens and occurrences are easily garnered from Ocean Drilling Programme cores. Planktic foraminifera therefore represent an ideal model group with w

  11. Re:What Tax Dollars? by Miraba · · Score: 1 · on Scientist Must Pay to Read His Own Paper

    Free, online-only publications can be fine, but professional editing can be necessary for authors who don't speak English as a first language. It can also be necessary for authors who do speak English as a first language.

    We just make it fit on dead trees? Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems is online-only. Every other journal that AGU publishes is also offered online. We "often" screw up formatting of print copies? Show me some scanned pages with botched formatting and compare that to the number of total pages we've published.

    Go away, troll. Commercial publishers will be around for a long time.

  12. Re:What Tax Dollars? by Miraba · · Score: 1 · on Scientist Must Pay to Read His Own Paper

    Hi, I work at a scientific publisher. If you consider professional editing to be of "no value," you're obviously unfamiliar with what many papers look like when they're accepted.

  13. Re:Assumption busting... by SQLGuru · · Score: 1 · on 200,000 Elliptical Galaxies Point the Same Way

    Thanks to our friend Google: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025437 .shtml

    Layne

  14. Re:A clumsy attempt to rouse public opinion by Miraba · · Score: 1 · on Copyright Advocacy Group Violates Copyright

    Hi, I work at a nonprofit scientific publisher. Here's what actually happens:

    The paper is submitted.
    The journal editor sends it to an associate editor.
    The associate editor selects the peer reviewers.
    The scientists recommend changes before accepting the paper. These comments go back to the author through the editor. Not requiring changes is extremely rare.
    The author makes changes and resubmits the paper. The editor accepts the paper and the author is notified.

    The paper now moves in-house.
    The color option is set and payment is calculated. This shows our publication fees. If the author is unable to pay, the fee may be waived.
    The author uploads images to the Image Center.
    The IC fixes the images so they adhere to the journal's requirements (format and resolution) and does a quality check.
    The author oks the edited images.
    Publication paperwork is completed. The paper can now go to Editorial Services.
    An incoming and metadata check is completed. Any missing files are supplied.
    The paper goes to a copy editor. Grammatical errors are fixed and the paper is brought into line with the journal's style. Author is e-mailed for any missing information and any further figure revisions are made.
    The paper is formatted by a vendor. The paper now exists in three formats: XML, HTML, and a low-quality PDF.
    The author checks the HTML and PDF for errors. If there are major changes, the author may request an additional round of editing for a fee.
    An assistant copy editor checks all versions for errors.
    The publishing date and information is set. The CE marks all editorial changes and publishing information.
    The vendor corrects all versions.
    A proofreader checks that all changes are made and that every file is available online.
    All further changes are made by an in-house web group.
    The electronic copy goes live.
    A high-quality PDF is sent to the printer.

    Here is AGU's policy on copyright. The options are AGU, Public Domain, or Crown. The issue of copyright is not to be confused with Open Access.

    If you look at the prices for open access and compare them to the normal fees, you'll see that it will roughly cost an additional 250% to publish under OA (excluding fees for color figures). A JGR-Space Physics paper that is 30 Publishing Units will cost $900 to print normally and $3150 to release under OA. The extra fee of $2250 is to cover what AGU would be earning through normal sales of this article; it's not "profit." Since the option was offered (April), we have had 1 paper submitted under OA (it's just been accepted, otherwise I would give you the ID).

    Again, AGU is a nonprofit. It would be great if the government would throw enough money at us so we could make everything open access. It's not going to happen any time soon.

  15. Re:A clumsy attempt to rouse public opinion by Miraba · · Score: 1 · on Copyright Advocacy Group Violates Copyright

    Hi, I work at a nonprofit scientific publisher. Here's what actually happens:

    The paper is submitted.
    The journal editor sends it to an associate editor.
    The associate editor selects the peer reviewers.
    The scientists recommend changes before accepting the paper. These comments go back to the author through the editor. Not requiring changes is extremely rare.
    The author makes changes and resubmits the paper. The editor accepts the paper and the author is notified.

    The paper now moves in-house.
    The color option is set and payment is calculated. This shows our publication fees. If the author is unable to pay, the fee may be waived.
    The author uploads images to the Image Center.
    The IC fixes the images so they adhere to the journal's requirements (format and resolution) and does a quality check.
    The author oks the edited images.
    Publication paperwork is completed. The paper can now go to Editorial Services.
    An incoming and metadata check is completed. Any missing files are supplied.
    The paper goes to a copy editor. Grammatical errors are fixed and the paper is brought into line with the journal's style. Author is e-mailed for any missing information and any further figure revisions are made.
    The paper is formatted by a vendor. The paper now exists in three formats: XML, HTML, and a low-quality PDF.
    The author checks the HTML and PDF for errors. If there are major changes, the author may request an additional round of editing for a fee.
    An assistant copy editor checks all versions for errors.
    The publishing date and information is set. The CE marks all editorial changes and publishing information.
    The vendor corrects all versions.
    A proofreader checks that all changes are made and that every file is available online.
    All further changes are made by an in-house web group.
    The electronic copy goes live.
    A high-quality PDF is sent to the printer.

    Here is AGU's policy on copyright. The options are AGU, Public Domain, or Crown. The issue of copyright is not to be confused with Open Access.

    If you look at the prices for open access and compare them to the normal fees, you'll see that it will roughly cost an additional 250% to publish under OA (excluding fees for color figures). A JGR-Space Physics paper that is 30 Publishing Units will cost $900 to print normally and $3150 to release under OA. The extra fee of $2250 is to cover what AGU would be earning through normal sales of this article; it's not "profit." Since the option was offered (April), we have had 1 paper submitted under OA (it's just been accepted, otherwise I would give you the ID).

    Again, AGU is a nonprofit. It would be great if the government would throw enough money at us so we could make everything open access. It's not going to happen any time soon.

  16. Re:A clumsy attempt to rouse public opinion by Miraba · · Score: 1 · on Copyright Advocacy Group Violates Copyright

    Hi, I work at a nonprofit scientific publisher. Here's what actually happens:

    The paper is submitted.
    The journal editor sends it to an associate editor.
    The associate editor selects the peer reviewers.
    The scientists recommend changes before accepting the paper. These comments go back to the author through the editor. Not requiring changes is extremely rare.
    The author makes changes and resubmits the paper. The editor accepts the paper and the author is notified.

    The paper now moves in-house.
    The color option is set and payment is calculated. This shows our publication fees. If the author is unable to pay, the fee may be waived.
    The author uploads images to the Image Center.
    The IC fixes the images so they adhere to the journal's requirements (format and resolution) and does a quality check.
    The author oks the edited images.
    Publication paperwork is completed. The paper can now go to Editorial Services.
    An incoming and metadata check is completed. Any missing files are supplied.
    The paper goes to a copy editor. Grammatical errors are fixed and the paper is brought into line with the journal's style. Author is e-mailed for any missing information and any further figure revisions are made.
    The paper is formatted by a vendor. The paper now exists in three formats: XML, HTML, and a low-quality PDF.
    The author checks the HTML and PDF for errors. If there are major changes, the author may request an additional round of editing for a fee.
    An assistant copy editor checks all versions for errors.
    The publishing date and information is set. The CE marks all editorial changes and publishing information.
    The vendor corrects all versions.
    A proofreader checks that all changes are made and that every file is available online.
    All further changes are made by an in-house web group.
    The electronic copy goes live.
    A high-quality PDF is sent to the printer.

    Here is AGU's policy on copyright. The options are AGU, Public Domain, or Crown. The issue of copyright is not to be confused with Open Access.

    If you look at the prices for open access and compare them to the normal fees, you'll see that it will roughly cost an additional 250% to publish under OA (excluding fees for color figures). A JGR-Space Physics paper that is 30 Publishing Units will cost $900 to print normally and $3150 to release under OA. The extra fee of $2250 is to cover what AGU would be earning through normal sales of this article; it's not "profit." Since the option was offered (April), we have had 1 paper submitted under OA (it's just been accepted, otherwise I would give you the ID).

    Again, AGU is a nonprofit. It would be great if the government would throw enough money at us so we could make everything open access. It's not going to happen any time soon.

  17. Re:A clumsy attempt to rouse public opinion by Miraba · · Score: 1 · on Copyright Advocacy Group Violates Copyright

    Hi, I work at a nonprofit scientific publisher. Here's what actually happens:

    The paper is submitted.
    The journal editor sends it to an associate editor.
    The associate editor selects the peer reviewers.
    The scientists recommend changes before accepting the paper. These comments go back to the author through the editor. Not requiring changes is extremely rare.
    The author makes changes and resubmits the paper. The editor accepts the paper and the author is notified.

    The paper now moves in-house.
    The color option is set and payment is calculated. This shows our publication fees. If the author is unable to pay, the fee may be waived.
    The author uploads images to the Image Center.
    The IC fixes the images so they adhere to the journal's requirements (format and resolution) and does a quality check.
    The author oks the edited images.
    Publication paperwork is completed. The paper can now go to Editorial Services.
    An incoming and metadata check is completed. Any missing files are supplied.
    The paper goes to a copy editor. Grammatical errors are fixed and the paper is brought into line with the journal's style. Author is e-mailed for any missing information and any further figure revisions are made.
    The paper is formatted by a vendor. The paper now exists in three formats: XML, HTML, and a low-quality PDF.
    The author checks the HTML and PDF for errors. If there are major changes, the author may request an additional round of editing for a fee.
    An assistant copy editor checks all versions for errors.
    The publishing date and information is set. The CE marks all editorial changes and publishing information.
    The vendor corrects all versions.
    A proofreader checks that all changes are made and that every file is available online.
    All further changes are made by an in-house web group.
    The electronic copy goes live.
    A high-quality PDF is sent to the printer.

    Here is AGU's policy on copyright. The options are AGU, Public Domain, or Crown. The issue of copyright is not to be confused with Open Access.

    If you look at the prices for open access and compare them to the normal fees, you'll see that it will roughly cost an additional 250% to publish under OA (excluding fees for color figures). A JGR-Space Physics paper that is 30 Publishing Units will cost $900 to print normally and $3150 to release under OA. The extra fee of $2250 is to cover what AGU would be earning through normal sales of this article; it's not "profit." Since the option was offered (April), we have had 1 paper submitted under OA (it's just been accepted, otherwise I would give you the ID).

    Again, AGU is a nonprofit. It would be great if the government would throw enough money at us so we could make everything open access. It's not going to happen any time soon.

  18. Re:Global Climate Forced Differential by Miraba · · Score: 1 · on James Hansen on the Warmest Year Brouhaha

    The book is now available for order here: https://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/agubookstore?book=OSGM 1734382 I definitely recommend reading the introduction.

  19. Re:The bigger issue by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1 · on James Hansen on the Warmest Year Brouhaha

    The points in that article are useful, but fail to address the concerns raised by the likes of Freeman Dyson as to the reliability of our current models. Dyson never raised any specific concerns about the reliability of current models, just vague handwaving.

    It's certainly true that, say, cloud parametrizations are a limitation of the models, but there's a big difference between "doesn't get everything right" and "is completely untrustworthy". Even GCMs from 20 years ago have done a decent job at predicting the future. Feedbacks contribute the greatest uncertainty to GCM predictions, which is why those predictions have error bars, but you can't get extremely far from the mainstream predictions without making some very questionable assumptions. I'm not saying that it's impossible that the basic prediction of future warming will change, but generic FUD about "models are untrustworthy" are not useful: you have to quantify the range of probable error.

    The problem is that we don't understand much about how [CO2] impacts the Earth's climate. This is disingenuous. We don't understand everything, but we understand a great deal. (Your example below, by the way, does not concern CO2's impact, but rather land use change.)

    For example (and this is only an example for sake of the more abstract discussion of the models), I'm not aware of any model that takes ground-cover water vapor into account. GCMs take into account water vapor from terrestrial vegetation, but do not include water vapor from irrigation. The issue has been studied, however; see, for instance, here. The authors found that there is not much impact on the global climate, but there can be significant impacts on regional climates where there is large land use change. They found that the greenhouse effect of agricultural water vapor is negligible; the main climate effect comes from changes to surface heat fluxes, which reduce warming rather than adding to it. They summarize that while the effect is not significant to the global climate, it may be significant as far as crop production is concerned.

    Is this related to warming? Perhaps, but the more important question is: why are we so quick to assume that we understand the relationship between humans and climate when we're still at such an early stage of our understanding of the climate? This misses the point. We do not assume we understand everything about the climate. We don't, and never will. All models are wrong, but some are useful. There is great uncertainty about many climate predictions, yet those predictions when compared to observations are still accurate enough to be useful from a policy perspective, as surmised from several decades of intensive study.
  20. Re:The bigger issue by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1 · on James Hansen on the Warmest Year Brouhaha

    That there was warming in the '20s, when human greenhouse gas inputs were far less of a factor. See my point in the grandparent post regarding "natural" warming.

    Yes, we know that natural warming can exist, and in fact, climate models predict the natural warming in the early 20th century. That doesn't change the evidence that the late 20th and 21st century warming cannot be adequately explained by natural effects.

    It's relevant to the extent that recent record US temperatures have been tied to "Global Warming" in the press

    In other words, it's irrelevant to the science.

    It also calls into question the published global temperature means - surely the best record keeping and science occurred at least in first world countries.

    That's a specious argument. Other countries didn't partition the data into pre and post 2000 and even if they did, it would be beyond credibility that they made exactly the same mistake. If you want to argue that they are more likely to have made some other mistake, you are free to do so, but the mistake that was actually made says nothing one way or another about the credibility of other data sets.

    There's also the issue of weather stations being affected by urban heat islands over time.

    Which has already been studied and, when necessary, corrected.

    Really? And how do we "know" this exactly? Perhaps you'd care to share with us the percentage of worldwide yearly C02, H2O vapor, and methane emissions for which humans are responsible?

    You're free to start with the IPCC report and dig into the references. We know, for instance, that almost all of the ~100 ppm CO2 increase over the last 150 years is due to us, by (a) estimates of human industrial activity, (b) measurements of natural sources, and (c) isotopic fingerprinting of atmospheric CO2.

    I'm also sure you can guarantee that there've been no unaccounted for inputs or effects in the system, that aren't currently modeled correctly...

    Ah, FUD. "We don't know everything, therefore we don't know anything."

    It was widely reported this week that a new, major current had been discovered off Madagascar that's responsible for major climate effects. How can current models be accurate when not taking this current into account?

    There's accurate, and then there's accurate. All models are wrong. Always. The real question is, are they accurate enough for the purposes to which they are put? Modelers have given evidence that they are, based on their correspondence with observed data. If you want to argue that the models are too flawed to be used in climate prediction, you may do so, but you'll have to do better than vaguely insisting that they aren't perfect and are therefore worthless.

    In point of fact, models PREDICTED the current you mention, and they are only now observing it in the real ocean, AFTER it was discovered in model simulations! The paper states, "This confirms recent model descriptions of a Southern Hemisphere 'supergyre', a nested system of subtropical gyres". Does that tell you something about the utility of climate models in making useful predictions?

    In some models, reduced rainforest area is associated with reduced greenhouse gas sinking. Yet real world observation indicates that rainforests are net greenhouse gas producers, due to methane from decomposition (methane is a 40 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2).

    The terrestrial vegetation cycle is not well modeled, and uncertainty in vegetative representation leads to uncertainty in model prediction. However, the uncertainty isn't large enough to change the basic prediction of continued warming.

    Sure...26 times further would be one year. Now tell me the story about 93 years...

    As I said, weather prediction is entirely different from climate prediction. It is impossible to predict the weather 20 years in advance, but it is p

  21. Re:Begin the Spin by Psion · · Score: 1 · on The Heretical Freeman Dyson

    Let's stick with peer-reviewed research, ok? This is a press release. Show me the science this is based off.
    Will this do? Or is there some problem with Geophysical Research Letters? You originally said the "deniers" were spending "approximately zero time in the lab or in the field, actually recording data and making observations." This is just one example that invalidates that ignorant statement. You also presented me with a handy "etc." that you claim makes an easy out, although the examples you cited might be just as easy to prove as rocks don't fall down and the sky isn't blue. Still, I think this "press release" is a marvelous example of exactly the sort of research that counters the results of the climate models because, quite simply, a central assumption of all the climate models got it wrong. Garbage in, garbage out and the models are producing garbage projections.

    You won't be able to tell me that, because CO2 records are maintained for only one place on the planet ... the side of a volcano in Hawaii! That's just false. We have CO2 measurements from all over the world; and the Hawaii measurements are hardly suspect, given the altitude of the measurements.
    You're right, I worded that very poorly. I meant that the measurements I've always seen come from Mauna Loa. I'm sure there are long-term measurements coming from other sources, but I never see them in discussions about climate. That's peculiar, since that package wasn't originally placed for climate-monitoring reasons, but to monitor the volcano -- because volcanoes do produce CO2. So how about it? Are there any graphs out there for a location in the middle of North America? Even just a simple dataset that can be used to draw such a time vs. concentration graph will do. Honestly, I'd expect this to be paraded out by skeptics if the graphs showed appreciable difference from Mauna Loa, so if you can link to such a detail, it'd probably be an easy point for your side.

    The press release? That's exactly what I'm talking about. The climate change deniers are putting all their energy into making press releases and publishing articles in the newspaper - instead of publishing research in scientific journals. Where's the research? Don't link to press releases. Link to primary research. You won't be able to - because there isn't any. It's a scam.
    Do you even know who John Christy is? He's not some schmuck living off bribes from Exxon, he's a pre-eminent researcher in climatology. Here's a short biography for him at NASA. Get your nose out of the "Earth Mother's Guide to Global Warming". You might do well to understand something about the people you're dismissing as "selfish greedy bastards" who don't take the time to do the research.
  22. Numbers way off by poszi · · Score: 1 · on The Potential of Geothermal Power
    The numbers given are someones imagination. Total world power consumption is 15 TW (there is a link to a DOE report in wiki). The total world geothermal heat flux is 44.2 TW (including the crust under oceans).

    Of course to some extent this heat can be "mined". The crust is a good heat insulator so it takes ages for the heat to escape the Earth. By drilling and pumping water, one can extract this heat quicker thus increasing the flux. But then, it's no longer a renewable source and it's not going to be virtually inexhaustible.Of course there are some "hotspots", where geothermal energy is viable but it will not solve the energy problems.

  23. Re:Scientific vs. unscientific by Coryoth · · Score: 1 · on Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration

    This project has the potential to be meaningful, but it has a long way to go yet. They need a hypothesis, a rigorous way to test it, and repeatable results. Luckily other people have already studied these effects. Historical temperature reconstructions, such as NASAs GISS instrumental temperature record, account for urban effetcs; in the GISS case this is done by normalising urban temperatures against temperatures from surrounding rural areas. There have also been studies done [1] [2], [3], that show that such urban effects are insufficient (by a large measure) to account for the observed warming. Indeed, the relative effect averaged across all stations was found to be negligible.
  24. What about the firestorm? by Podcaster · · Score: 5, Informative · on Did an Exploding Comet Doom Early Americans?

    a comet exploded over ice-covered Canada 12,900 years ago and triggered a firestorm across North America

    According to TFA, the firestorm seems to be the most controversial part of their claims. All the dissenting voices in the article made mention of it.

    According to the abstracts of the research, it looks like the strongest evidence of a trans-american firestorm is "... a carbon-rich black layer commonly referred to as a black mat, with a basal age of approximately 12.9 ka, ... identified at over 50 sites across North America"

    -P

  25. Re:Yeah, but not for 'tetrahedron.' by mako1138 · · Score: 1 · on ESA's Cluster Spacecraft Makes Shocking Discovery

    Actually, in this case, it's more accurate to think of the solar wind blowing past the earth. The bow shock faces the sun.

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/cowley.html

  26. Re:"highly contradictory" indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on ESA's Cluster Spacecraft Makes Shocking Discovery

    The article actually gives the reference to the scientific paper

    Nonstationarity and reformation of high-Mach-number quasiperpendicular shocks: Cluster observations, by V.V. Lobzin et al. published on 9 March 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters.

    Unfortunately, you have to pay $9.00 to see the article unless you have a subscription to Geophysical Research Letters. The library at a local college or university might have a print copy of the journal or online access that would let you view the article for free, if you're really interested.

  27. Re:Keep in mind Indep Search: by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Informative · on Sunspots Reach 1000-Year Peak

    Beryllium in ice cores: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97JC01265.sh tml

    "The most dramatic is a 10Be peak ?40,000 years ago, similar to that found in the Vostok ice core, thus permitting a very precise correlation between climate records from Arctic and Antarctic ice cores."

    There is a lot of scientific data and the summary article (as poor as it was) did not even start to touch on the breadth of what is currently known from the analyses.

  28. Remember Galaxy 4? by Pontiac · · Score: 5, Informative · on NASA Confirms Solar Storm Near 2012

    Funny how people forget..

    When Galaxy 4 died it took out 80% of the pagers in the US plus several video feeds used by the major networks (I worked for CBS at the time)

    This was 2 years before the 2000 Solar max when solar activity was ramping up.
    More storms in 2003 took out power in parts of Switzerland and killed 2 Satellites

    There were several solar flare warnings around that time.

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast14jul_2 m.htm

    July 14, 2000 -- This morning NOAA satellites and the orbiting Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) recorded one of the most powerful solar flares of the current solar cycle. Space weather forecasters had been predicting for days that an intense flare might erupt from the large sunspot group 9077, and today one did.

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/power_outage _031031.html

    The sixth in an unprecedented series of strong space storms dished out by the Sun over a 10-day period plowed past Earth Thursday, apparently cutting power to 20,000 Swedish customers. The powerful series of outbursts also claimed two satellites as casualties while fueling a host of minor disruptions to radio broadcasts and airline flight plans.

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/articles/eisbaker.html

    A very intense flux of electrons, evident in the magnetosphere earlier this year, may have caused a satellite failure (or at least exacerbated the situation) leading to the loss of telephone pager service to 45 million customers, research has shown. The electrons, known as highly relativistic electrons (HREs), were especially numerous in the weeks preceding the failure. Researchers say HREs have triggered spacecraft anomalies in the past when fluxes are elevated. They therefore believe this energetic electron event could have been behind the failure of the attitude control system of the Galaxy 4 spacecraft at 2200 UT on May 19, 1998. A backup system also failed, either at the same time or earlier, so operators were unable to maintain a stable Earth link.

    Galaxy 4 is a heavily used communication satellite at geostationary orbit*. Its sudden failure caused not only widespread loss of pager service but also numerous other communication outages. Using a wide array of datasets, our team of scientists analyzed the space environment for the times in question and found evidence of highly disturbed solar, solar wind*, and geomagnetic conditions in late April and early May. The combination of coronal mass ejections*, solar flares*, and high speed solar wind streams led to a powerful sequence of interplanetary disturbances that hit the Earth. These disturbances produced a deep, powerful, and long-lasting enhancement of the HRE population throughout the outer Van Allen radiation zone. The kinds of disturbances witnessed are indicative of the types of events that may commonly occur during the approaching peak in solar activity in the years 2000 and 2001. It will be most important to determine how well space systems can stand up to the multifaceted effects of the space environment over the next several years.

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ cell_phone_020306.html

    Next time your cell phone drops acall, don't rush to blame your service provider. The culprit may well be anangry Sun.

    A new study of 40 years of solardata shows that during peaks in activity, bursts of energy from the Sun canpotentially cause dropped calls for some cell phone users across wide areastwice per week. The problem is caused when radio waves associated with thebursts hit cell phone towers, creating static that overwhelms the signal at thetower, where calls are relayed.

    T

  29. Re:Believe it. by electroniceric · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Threatened For "Climate Denial"

    Wrong.
    Most scientists (as far as I can tell, and leaving out the Al Gores and Michael Crichton's) seem to agree that the globe is warming.
    Many of them believe that humans are contributing, mainly to an acceleration of a natural increase.
    This is why those of us with background in earth science find this so frustrating. The vast majority of the climate science community believes that humans are nearly certainly the most important contributor to current warming trends. Read the statement from the American Meteorological Society on climate change, or that of the National Academy of Sciences and other G8 nations' academies of science, or that of the American Geophysical Union. Or for the most recent views, read the IPCC 4th Asssessment Report. All of these groups and documents say the same thing: the Earth is complex and nonlinear, so while natural variability cannot be absolutely and totally ruled out, it is highly likely (90%+ likely, in the IPCC 4AR's own words) that human influence is the main contributor to climate change. That same sentence is in the first couple paragraphs of every one of these statements. So not only do a strong majority of practicing climate scientists believe climate change is happening, they also attribute recent changes to human activity. That's the consensus. There's room for improvement in a number of areas, but the basic diagnosis is agreed upon. Claims to the contrary are simply not factual, and those contrary claims causes people like me great frustration and on occasion I'll confess cause my to be a little vitriolic. Where there is less agreement is in predictions of the speed, magnitude and spatial variability of changes. The IPCC 4AR itself allows nearly an order of magnitude of total warming (2C to 10C). Even the best modelers aren't willing to say unequivocally the exact path warming will take. But the message is clear that it is happening, it is very likely to due to human influence, and it will have moderately severe to catastrophic consequences. All of the documents I mention also state that policy actions are needed immediately. These being academies of natural science, they generally leave to governments how best to balance economic and social concerns with the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Al Gore is not a climate scientist, but he does not make claims that contradict statements by major scientific societies (he does present claims such as projected sea level increases that themselves have not been endorsed by those societies - note again the difference between diagnostic and predictive claims). But Tim Ball repeatedly makes claims that contradict the statements of the professional societies of experts - without having done any research to substantiate his position! And the fact that he does this over and over, with nothign new to back up what he's saying, strongly suggests that - whatever his motivations are- he is not really evaluating the claims he's speaking against. So when people tell you he's not credible, they're totally right.
  30. Re:That's what you get out of it? by Morinaga · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Threatened For "Climate Denial"

    I still don't understand what that has to do with anything. My breathing effects the warming of the air around me. The question is the relative importance of that effect in relation to the whole .

    Water Vapor, solar cycles and other means also have a role. The issue at hand and you sir are guilty of this yourself in other postings is that instead of debating the science of various "skeptics", the "believers" instead use ad hominem questions of perceived qualifications of said skeptics to attack their conclusions.

    Peer reviewed papers offering evidence of natural climate behaviors contrary to the climate warming vein are thoroughly ignored. The man in question shouldn't be chastised for his qualifications or resume of work but for what he claims. Are skeptics being black-balled? I don't think that's too far fetched of a hypothesis do you?

    You can do all kinds of internet searches but they always seem to miss protected research papers such as this; http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL025 977.shtml or even more importantly, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL027 033.shtml. Items like http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_v iewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=444&PHPSESSI D=7b6415c4d679d6df5c28f395d03c416e just don't seem to grab the front page of the NY Times do they?

    I think the reasons people attack the messenger rather than the message is as old as time itself. The topic has become extremely emotional. I think it's also pretty obvious why big media headlines the most flamboyant of catastrophic predictions. It doesn't matter how many scientific papers dispute the claim that climate change has made hurricanes more severe, it sells more papers to predict the worst. I'm straying off topic quite a bit here I admit. In any case, instead of doing searches of credentials, why don't we dispute their findings?

  31. Re:That's what you get out of it? by Morinaga · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Threatened For "Climate Denial"

    I still don't understand what that has to do with anything. My breathing effects the warming of the air around me. The question is the relative importance of that effect in relation to the whole .

    Water Vapor, solar cycles and other means also have a role. The issue at hand and you sir are guilty of this yourself in other postings is that instead of debating the science of various "skeptics", the "believers" instead use ad hominem questions of perceived qualifications of said skeptics to attack their conclusions.

    Peer reviewed papers offering evidence of natural climate behaviors contrary to the climate warming vein are thoroughly ignored. The man in question shouldn't be chastised for his qualifications or resume of work but for what he claims. Are skeptics being black-balled? I don't think that's too far fetched of a hypothesis do you?

    You can do all kinds of internet searches but they always seem to miss protected research papers such as this; http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL025 977.shtml or even more importantly, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL027 033.shtml. Items like http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_v iewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=444&PHPSESSI D=7b6415c4d679d6df5c28f395d03c416e just don't seem to grab the front page of the NY Times do they?

    I think the reasons people attack the messenger rather than the message is as old as time itself. The topic has become extremely emotional. I think it's also pretty obvious why big media headlines the most flamboyant of catastrophic predictions. It doesn't matter how many scientific papers dispute the claim that climate change has made hurricanes more severe, it sells more papers to predict the worst. I'm straying off topic quite a bit here I admit. In any case, instead of doing searches of credentials, why don't we dispute their findings?

  32. Re:Shatter cones by ikluft · · Score: 4, Informative · on Possible Large Impact Crater In Nevada
    The references that I found useful to learn about shatter cones are You have to be careful not to assume that any conical rock is a shatter cone. It's something that the shock wave places in the rock at large and small scales. It's like a fractal in that the pattern exists within the pattern at any scales you can observe.
  33. Re:Maybe it's by skoaldipper · · Score: 1 · on Huge Reservoir Discovered Beneath Asia

    IANA Geologist, but I always found mudslide type stories on the news quite fascinating; you know, the videos showing entire sections of land just dropping straight down. Is it possible some of this evaporation is in part responsible for these slump landslides?

    It's funny you mention Atlantis. I saw a PBS special just last nite, and several archaeologists were using Plato's story of Atlantis as their guide (since it was told in great detail by him). Currently, the best guess is if Atlantis truly existed, it was located somewhere along the western coastal sections of South America (near Chile and Peru along the Andes mountain range). I found one such article related to this one, and it states seismic waves sent to the "[...] transition zone beneath the Andes could be either saturated with water or dry as a desert". I think it's the first guess. I got my shovel and plane ticket ready.

  34. Re:cult of global warming by tscoreninja · · Score: 5, Informative · on Cosmic Rays and Global Warming

    he MUST be in the pocket of big business. Actually he probably wants to promote the book he is going to publish. So he definitely is in it for the money. Also, he selectively quotes results, while omitting contrary findings. Just a few aspects from the artikel:

    While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.... Why is east Antarctica getting colder?" It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. Other sources present a completely different picture :

    'The greatest temperature rise on Earth over the past five decades has been found on the Antarctic peninsula, which stretches north from the continent towards South America,' said Dr John Turner. 'Temperatures have risen 5C on the peninsula.' That figure is 10 times the average global temperature rise for the same period. In addition, researchers reported last October that in just over a month, an entire Antarctic ice shelf, bigger than Gloucestershire, had disintegrated and disappeared, with its loss directly linked to man-made global warming. Also, why does not he mention the fact that the original Svensmark paper has been disproofed? His claim

    But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism. He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. is simply wrong: See Damen and Laut, 2004, available at http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

    An update with the correct data (from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Program,ISCCP) shows that the development of total global cloud cover since 1992 has been in clear contradiction to the hypothesis proposed by the authors So decide for yourself how unbiased the author is.
  35. Re:Right, so... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study

    Shaviv's conclusions disagree with most other work on solar variations and global warming. The cosmic ray connection is particularly tenuous. Foukal et al.'s 2006 paper in Nature gives a good review of the work in the field; for a specific critique of Shaviv's work, see this rebuttal by eleven climatologists as well their more detailed analysis; there have been other criticisms in the literature, but that is a fairly good summary.

  36. Re:Climatologists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Congress Hears From Muzzled Scientists

    Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years...I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
    Can global warming be attributed to this you ask? Well, it's a matter of sitting down and runnign the numbers. Luckily people have - it's not like people aren't bothering to measure and track the amount of solar radiation that actually reaches the surface of the earth. We can then calculate how much that might contribute to warming. The IPCC, in the Third Assessment Report, put it at about 30% of observed warming. They also concluded that the warming of the last 50 years cannot be explained without considering anthropogenic effects - that is, solar explanations alone are not enough.
    If by 'solar radiation' you mean 'light', it is not deflected by the magnetic field of the Earth at all, since photons are neutral particles.

    Perhaps the poster was attempting to allude to various hypotheses that have been put forward regarding solar influences on cosmic rays and cloud formation.

    The idea is that gradual variations in the solar wind can influence the size, shape, and strength of the Earth's magnetosphere. This could influence the trajectories and flux of cosmic rays impinging on the upper atmosphere, which in turn may affect the rate of cloud formation.
  37. Ah but they have ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on The Mystery of Saturn's Atmosphere

    Here's a little light reading for you.
    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm04/fm04-sessions/fm0 4_T42A.html
    Rather than sniping from the bushes, how about stretching your mind a bit and providing a cogent explanation.

  38. Here's some food for thought by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1 · on Global Warming Only a Theory, Says School Board

    What I could find indicates that the last global heat wave is believed to have occurred over about 10,000 years. Humanity has raised the CO2 content of the atmosphere by about 30% in one century, and unless we decelerate our burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc. at least as quickly as we accelerated them, we'll do it again in this one. We're already up about 0.6C and that includes the dampening effects of pollutants (aerosols like sulfur) and the thermal inertia and CO2 absorption of the oceans. When the oceans get warm enough, that CO2 will fizz its way back out.... along with lots and lots of methane from the decomposition of clathrates on the continental shelves (which some people speculate may have been behind the odor in NYC last week; there's plenty of methane clathrate in the Hudson river canyon. And once those start feeding back through greater ocean warming, we could wind up with the arctic ocean at bathwater temperatures like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

    I'd rather not do this at all, let alone in a century. If we have use Paul Cruzen's idea and pump a million tons or so of sulfur into the stratosphere to push back towards center while we deal with the GHG's, I'm all for it.

  39. Re:Because we all know by Decaff · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Giant Ice Shelf Snaps

    And you have evidence for this claim?

    Yes, of course I do, otherwise I would not have posted the claim. Here is an example.
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021387 .shtml
    "Evidence for subglacial water transport in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet through three-dimensional satellite radar interferometry"

    I think the appropriate question here is, given that this is a well-documented and understood phenomenon, what are your political motives for questioning it?

    It seems like an unlikely scenario in any case. Water doesn't exactly make a good lubricant for sub-freezing ice, it has terrible viscosity performance below 32F!

    That is not the point. It has to do is have better viscocity performance than pure ice.

  40. Re:Mod parent flamebait by pnewhook · · Score: 1 · on Inhabited Island Vanishes Forever Underwater
    By the way, your reference was written two years prior to this gravitational study.

    Ok, heres a more recent publication, posted AFTER the NASA report that you cite: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026369 .shtml

    After adjusting for bias due to smoothing and to GRACE's limited spatial resolution, and removing post glacial rebound (PGR) effects, the rate in West Antarctica is -77 ± 14 km3/year, similar to a recent estimate of ice mass loss from satellite altimetry and remote sensing data. The prominent East Antarctic feature in the Enderby Land region has a rate of +80 ± 16 km3/year. Published snow/ice mass rates from remote sensing measurements indicate approximate ice mass balance in this region...

    So, with better data, it shows no net loss of ice in the region, consistant with earlier estimates...

  41. Carrington Event 1859 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle

    In 1859 a Coronal Mass Ejection (CME) was observed by Richard Carrington
    a British Astronomer. Aurora was observed in Havana and transcontinental telegraph
    lines burst into flames...

    If one of a similar intensity were to hit us today, it would might
    burn out electrical systems hemisphere wide. Our power grids and
    transistor based control system could fail.

    I would be curious if someone with a statistics background could give
    some rough estimate as to the frequency of a CME hitting earth, based upon
    the fact that the last such an event (which would severly disrupt our civilization)
    happened only 147 years ago.

    http://csem.engin.umich.edu/muri/MURIreport2003.pd f

    http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv= table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=s m04&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Fsm 04%2Fsm04&maxhits=200&=%22SH51B%22

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AdSpR..38..232S

  42. Once again... hacking the papers by OUWxGuesser · · Score: 4, Informative · on Arctic Ice May Melt By 2040

    Here's the full abstract. Note that 1 of 7 computer models showed total ice melt by 2040... the worst case scenario. Gotta love how the media grabs the flashy stuff. Holland, Marika M.; Bitz, Cecilia M.; Tremblay, Bruno Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 33, No. 23, L23503 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL028024 .shtml Abstract We examine the trajectory of Arctic summer sea ice in seven projections from the Community Climate System Model and find that abrupt reductions are a common feature of these 21st century simulations. These events have decreasing September ice extent trends that are typically 4 times larger than comparable observed trends. One eventexhibits a decrease from 6 million km2 to 2 million km2 in a decade, reaching near ice-free September conditions by 2040. In the simulations, ice retreat accelerates as thinning increases the open water formation efficiency for a given melt rate and the ice-albedo feedback increases shortwave absorption. The retreat is abrupt when ocean heat transport to the Arctic is rapidly increasing. Analysis from multiple climate models and three forcing scenarios indicates that abrupt reductions occur in simulations from over 50% of the models and suggests that reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions moderate the likelihood of these events.

  43. Re:Water Vapor? by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 2, Informative · on Emissions of Key Greenhouse Gas Stabilize

    Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
    The atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is difficult to define because it is exchanged with reservoirs having a wide range of turnover times; IPCC 2001, (page 38) gives a range of 5-200 years.

    The lifetime of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide (Global Biogeochemical Cycles - American Geophysical Union)
    If one assumes a terrestrial biosphere with a fertilization flux, then our best estimate is that the single half-life for excess CO2 lies within the range of 19 to 49 years, with a reasonable average being 31 years. If we assume only regrowth, then the average value for the single half-life for excess CO2 increases to 72 years, and if we remove the terrestrial component completely, then it increases further to 92 years.

  44. Tsunami "expert" Ted Bryant by Spalti · · Score: 3, Informative · on Ancient Crash, Epic Wave

    After RTFA, I found out Ted Bryant is the Tsunami expert in this group of researchers. While researching for my thesis, I was confronted with his book, "Tsunami: the underrated hazard". This work, while being quite easy to understand, can hardly be called scientific based on his way of making citations (grouping all references at the beginning of a chapter which leaves you without the possibility to look up where he drew his conclusions from).

    Reviews of his book can be found here: http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/12/5/637 and here http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(03)00086-0 and here: Synolakis, C.E., and G.J. Fryer, 2001. Book Review: Tsunami: the underrated hazard by Edward Bryant, Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 82, 588 (can't find a quick link right now).

    The existence of so-called megatsunamis is hardly scientifically proven, especially not by the work of Bryant (he classified sedimentary features embedded in sandstone somewhere in Australia as relics of an ancient megatsunami when in a nearby graveyard the same sandstone wouldn't resist local climate and erosion for more than a few centuries).

    The propagation of tsunamis with huge waveheights seems to be limited due to dispersion effects and the so-called "Van-Dorn-Effect" should cause these huge waves to break as soon as they reach the continental shelf (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL02191 8.shtml and http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jmelosh/ImpactTsunami. pdf , but also http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=10986 ).

    After working some time in the field of megatsunamis (my thesis concentrated on the Cumbre Vieja Scenario postulated by Ward&Day back in 2001 (http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~ward/papers/La_Palma_grl. pdf) and, based on scientific grounds, I had to "debunk" it as several researchers have done before me), I have learned to take these reports with a grain (or better, a big portion) of salt.

  45. So let me get this straight, more ice = warming? by sam_vilain · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Icebergs Sailing Past New Zealand

    These days you get any freaky weather event, and it gets blamed on global warming. Even when it doesn't make sense.

    Surely, more ice making it further north would, if anything, be supporting evidence for datasets that show the oceans are getting cooler? You might also note that some data sets suggest that the global warming trend is not present in the Southern Hemisphere.

    There is some evidence that the icecaps melting around the edges, but getting thicker in the middle. Perhaps that's because the Sun's output is a huge factor to global warming, and there are no sunspots this year?

  46. So let me get this straight, more ice = warming? by sam_vilain · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Icebergs Sailing Past New Zealand

    These days you get any freaky weather event, and it gets blamed on global warming. Even when it doesn't make sense.

    Surely, more ice making it further north would, if anything, be supporting evidence for datasets that show the oceans are getting cooler? You might also note that some data sets suggest that the global warming trend is not present in the Southern Hemisphere.

    There is some evidence that the icecaps melting around the edges, but getting thicker in the middle. Perhaps that's because the Sun's output is a huge factor to global warming, and there are no sunspots this year?

  47. Re:Bad idea. Very, very bad. by electroniceric · · Score: 1 · on A Sunshade In Space To Combat Global Warming
    I happen to agree with you about the course of action:
    Study everything. Don't make new pollution. Reduce what pollution we're creating now. Cleaner is better on every level, so pursue that.
    and this is a nice succinct statement of that approach, but I'm sorry to say the facts simply do not support your assertion that there is not consensus. This:
    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_p osition.html
    alone is certainly more of the country's eminent climate scientists than the 41 listed by Wikipedia. The petition may include a lot of smart people, but there's no evidence that particularly many of them are climate scientists. In fact, as near as I can tell, there's no verification that they're practicing scientific researchers at all. And likewise the National Academy of Sciences has explicitly endorsed the IPCC report concluding that human activities are responsible for some or all of the warming observed.

    While the petition you provide of signers of the petition is interesting, when I googled 9 of the names in the list of physicists, meteorologists, geologists, etc, I found 4 inconclusives where I couldn't cleary identify the scientist, plus:

    On the same note the following article has this to say about that:
    http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/1034 7/C396/L396
    (see especially the sidebar on whether signers were duped). The money quote from that sidebar lead to my point:
    In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition would certainly be a lot more credible if the names were listed with the specialty and institution of the signer, which if you look at the site was in fact requested on the petition card. Whether the dissent of 2500 scientists not in the field from the consensus of the field represents a problem may be a question worth some thought, but it does not contradict the point that within the field there is consensus.

    Now, if your point is to argue that Kyoto was a bad mechanism, I think there are merits on either side of that argument. In particular, China got way too much of a pass under Kyoto, as it is set to easily surpass the US in emission rather soon. And like the US and Australia China has not made any good faith attempts to reduce emissions that would suggest that Kyoto would work anyway. But there's also no question that a carbon tax leading to (generously, even for us in favor of it) a 15% increase in energy prices can be sustained - we just went through that selfsame fraction of increase. But you can't make progress on emissions without eliminating free ridership all around, and the only way to do that is a worldwide agreement that assigns costs where they belong. I don't know if you're a Bushie, but the deafening silence of that administration on this subject of how to eliminate free riding in emissions makes it hard to believe that their arguments are good faith.
  48. Interesting statement, any support? by benhocking · · Score: 1 · on Global Warming Debunked?

    I've tried to verify your statement, but all I've found so far is that increased CO2 will lead to increased forest fires which will lead back to increased CO2 (how much was not stated), most of the contribution of forest fires to CO2 is due to tropical forests (think slash-and-burn), and that boreal forest fires (as opposed to tropical forest fires, for example), contributed 828-1,103 Tg of CO2 in 1998, compared to 2,214.837 Tg emitted by US fuels (only fuels, mind you) in 1998. According to that same link, the fuels are 40.5% of the total US contribution, so that comes out to about 5,470 Tg of CO2 from the US alone.

    So, your facts might be correct, but it's hard for me to verify. Do you have a source?

  49. Re:Just a minute... by Coryoth · · Score: 1 · on Tackling Global Warming Cheaper Than Ignoring It

    a) Is "global warming" really happening?

    Unless you are being perversely skeptical, the answer to that is "yes". We have historical temperature records going back to 1850. You can read the FAQ for such datasets and download the data for yourself if you like, or read the articles detailing data collection, analysis, and uncertainties. There is an obvious upward trend.

    Going back further requires use of proxy data such as tree rings, ice cores, coral data, glaciers, etc. There have been numerous different studies by different scientists collecting, and cross referencing such data to create historical temperature reconstructions. Here is a plot showing 10 different reconstructions by various authors. There is some variability, but the recent upward trend is again clear. Again, you can get the datasets yourself, and read more reports detailing how they are analysed. At about this point skeptics point to Greenland being green, or Wine growing in Europe in 1000AD, but I've discussed those before, so I won't go into detail again.

    The result is that, to claim that the earth is not presently getting warmer requires either a belief that limate scientists are almost universally incompetent, or that they are colluding en masse in a grand conspiracy to falsify data and delude the public. Either of those options would seem, to me, to be a much greater leap of faith than simply assuming that the world is, indeed, getting warmer. As I said, it requires a rather perverse skepticism more on par with 9/11 conspiracy theorists like the maker of Loose Change.

    b) If "global warming" is really happening, is it due to anything mankind is doing?

    An interesting question. Certainly mankind is doing something: since 1850 atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen from around 280ppm to 385ppm. That's a significant change - in fact given atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the last 650,000 years (via ice core data) the current levels are 5.5 standard deviations from the mean; that's significant! Are humans responsible for this change? Certainly it correlates with the industrial revolution, but still... As it happens we can do isotope analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide, since isotope ratios for fossil fuels are different from thoses of the rest of the carbon cycle. It turns out that indeed, the sudden increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is from humans burning fossil fuels. Now a little basic physics and the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide is enough to tell us that we should expect greater atmospheric carbon dioxide to result in a warmer planet. It turns out that is indeed what we are seeing, and that it correlates well. There's more than just that however. Have a read through the chapter on attribution of the IPCC Third Assessment report. A wide variety of techniques are used to attempt to attribute the observed warming to various potential causes. The end result is that the IPCC found that while warming prior to 1950 could possibly be accounted for by other factors, including solar variation, warming since 1950 can only be reasonably accounted for via anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide. Feel f

  50. Re:Language and assumption troubles by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful · on Scientists Shocked as Arctic Polar Route Revealed

    We can't prove that cracks that these haven't happened before, I agree, but we can prove with some pretty good evidence that the north pole hasn't gone through this amount of change recently (within a couple of hundred thousand years)

    The very references you point to suggest otherwise. There is evidence from Greenland ice cores that the Earth went through periods considerably warmer than recent history in the past 10,000 years. There is also pollen data (google "paleolimnology" for references). These events occured within the past few hundred thousand years.

    The claim that there is anything particularly "unprecedented" about current climate variability, including it's rapidity and it's affect on the Arctic, is simply marketing. The Earth's climate has always been highly variable, responding to a variety of external influences and internal changes, such as the current spike in atmospheric CO2 levels due to human industrial activity.

    The consequences of climate variability, such as species extinction (but not apparently polar bears, thankfully, as they have survived through the warmer periods of the past) and the destruction of human societies--such as the Viking settlements in Greenland and North America--are also quite well known.

    The problem with "news" is that it has to appear "new". Humans are attracted by novelty and most humans are cowards, so we are particulary attracted by novel threats. Ergo, even scientists (and certainly universities and research institutes that have an eye on public funding) put the most novel spin possible on every result.

    Some people argue that we must lie this way to get attention paid to global climate change and our contribution to it. This is a mistake. A society that needs to believe falsehoods on the order of "nothing like this has ever happened before OMG it's new and scary" before it is willing to change does not deserve to survive.

    In the same way that hostility from irrational, truth-hating creationists stifled healthy debate within the evolutionary community for many years, it is possible that irrational, truth-hating climate-change-deniers will cripple debate within the climatological community. That would be a shame, because it is only science that is going to get us out of this mess. And interestingly, creationists and climate-change-deniers have some remarkable similarities in their beliefs: they both believe that the Earth is far more stable than it actually is, and they both have blind faith in humanity's special place in it, as if we are immune to the forces of nature that we have helped unleash around us.