Slashdot Mirror

Evidence distinguishes between hypotheses. You have not presented evidence. For example, there's no evidence to support the assertion that current rates of change are faster than they were during actual extinction events. Second, there is a conflation of rate of change with amount of change.

This looks like a wall of denial to me, and a complete inability to reference anything credible. In the context of science as a social process, that indicates failure.

As for the rate of change, our emissions are actually outstripping what occurred before past extinction events. During the PETM, the rate of CO2 buildup was 2B metric tons per year while today it is 30B metric tons per year.

There is no "do nothing" option.

When doing something is worse than doing nothing, then there is such an option.

What you call "do nothing" is in fact doing something. It means we as a species are polluting the environment, changing it for the worse. That is doing something, although it may not seem that way from your viewpoint as an entitled consumer.

We have the choice of continuing current biosphere-damaging industrial processes (the real extreme here) or switching to processes that stay within ecological limits that the biosphere is able to handle.

You ignore here that the primary biosphere-damaging process is population growth. This is driven primarily by poverty. From the variety of poorly executed climate mitigation schemes that have already taken place, there seems to me to be a strong indication that we will see poverty increase with any of the desired hardcore climate change options, and that in turn will result in an increase in population and in climate change.

Population has a lot to do with it, but cannot be singled-out. Fossil fuel use and industrialization in the West led to a population boom first in the West (along with a boom in emissions per capita) and then elsewhere. But widespread female education and careerism, for instance, can curtail or stop population growth (and increase wealth and environmental health) IF the supporting industrial processes are cleaned up. We are facing systemic failure with multiple reinforcing factors and there are many different aspects to mitigating it.

It's becoming plastiglomerate! See: http://www.geosociety.org/gsat...

the water surface (Goldberg, 1997; Galgani et al., 2000; Keller et al., 2010). This debris may be composed of high-density plastics or low-density plastics with fouled surfaces (Ye and Andrady, 1991; Goldberg, 1997; Gregory, 2009; Lobelle and Cunliffe, 2011). Given the low water temperatures and decreased exposure to UV light at greater depths within and below the photic zone, sunken plastic debris has good potential to persist and eventually form part of the rock record. On beaches, plastic debris, such as resin pellets, fragments, and expanded polystyrene up to 11 mm in size, may be preserved within the upper 5 cm of beach sediment (Kusui and Noda, 2003). Claessens et al. (2011) identified microplastics in beach sediment cores at depths down to 32 cm. In addition, Fisner et al. (2013), in their study of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in pellets, were able to locate plastic debris at sediment depths as great as 1 m. However, we found no visible loose plastic fragments at depths >10 cm in sand on Kamilo Beach, Hawaii. Given the beach’s constant exposure to the northeasterly trade winds, much of the small ( http://www.geosociety.org/gsat...

So, you don't need to go back to the article.

And yes, I agree: It's all a scam to tax the poor American tax payer and Climate does not exist.

It does. End of story.

Oh, you wanted a document? What about doing your own research, you lazy slacker?

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/climate.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
(etc.. etc...)

And you are conflaing two things: the aquifer situation is the western United States, which is very preoccupying, to say the least, and global warming, which is definitely not going to improve the situation of said aquifers.

Hmmmmmmmm...who to trust?

On one hand I see that cpu6502 suspects that our current warming spike is entirely natural.

On the other hand I see that the U.S. National Academies and the science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian, the UK, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, NASA, the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the Geological Society of America, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Australian Institute of Physics and the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics think cpu6502 is wrong.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/american-physical-society.pdf
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=1907&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.pdf
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
http://www.euro-acad.eu/downloads/memorandas/lets_be_honest_-_festplenum_03.03.07_-_final2.pdf
http://www.aip.org.au/scipolicy/Science%20Policy.pdf
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf
http://planet3.org/2012/03/11/a-brief-guide-to-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

Plate Tectonics possibly, could be lots of smaller ones on mars. In the pic though, it almost looks like the line with the arrows, starts at one crater and ends at another crater. Almost as if something (or someone) landed in a crater for shelter and tunneled to another one...have we been there already?

Where's my tinhat,...

I don't know much about the geology, but could it possibly be the result of a shield volcano?

That's basically the current/default understanding - the rilles were created from subsurface flows of lava that left empty lava tubes, which collapsed leaving the rilles behind. Similar to what you see, on a much smaller scale, in places like Lava Beds on the Modoc plateau in Northern California.

This study points out that some of the rilles don't appear to really be starting or ending at identifiable volcanic vents/craters, and so they are questioning whether they are actually the result of volcanic activity. If you take a look at this photo, you can sort of see what they mean. The feature pointed out with the arrows looks a lot more like a stream bed than it does a collapsed lava tube. It is hard to really form a strong opinion from the photo, though; it is difficult to tell if the feature is actually following topography like a gravity flow.

It sounds like you have two vertical markets to look at for publishing:

• ACM - Association for Computing Machinery, is the major computer science organization, http://www.acm.org/ They would be interested in the algorithm and its impact
• The Geological Society of America, http://www.geosociety.org/ or similar in your host country.

Both of these organizations publish several different journals and you'd need to submit to the right one. You'll want to email or telephone someone on the inside to get a better idea of where your topic might fit, usually an editor, or the like. Keep in mind it would actually be two different papers as one would focus on the computer science aspects of what you did and the other would be more geoscience focused on the utility of the algorithm within the field, etc.

When geologists start telling me its time to panic, I'll panic.

They are. Read the statement of the American Geophysical Union. That statement is also supported by the Geological Society of America [PDF].

This reminds me a lot of something one of my grad-school professors did: he looked at Lewis & Clark's compass & sextant measurements to re-construct the magnetic field declination in the interior continental US ~200 years ago: http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/10/ they were remarkably accurate at dead reckoning direction & distance.

Are you sure? Go to a public university library. lots of bound journal. where i live all you need is a drivers license to prove you pay in state taxes to support the local Uni. Often times you can get access to some online journals. And text books.

Take one class and you can join professional societies for student fees and get access to online publications. Sometimes you need a prof to write a letter but if you take a class and are on good terms with them they'll do it if you show keen interest.
Here's a really cheap one:

http://www.geosociety.org/members/student.htm
$30/yr. $6/yr if you are in a low income country.

The real cost is publishing, but many cash strapped gov't agencies (NOAA, USDA, Park Service etc. in the US) with research arms are happy to have volunteers help with research and will help you with some equipment, field lodging etc. The Phds working at the research stations can help you write up results and get into journals. Having previously published coauthors is the key to getting published until you get a rep for solid work.

that we'll have big problems

Indeed :)

CC.

At the 98th Annual Meeting of the Cordilleran Section of the Geological Society of America (May 13-15, 2002), in Corvallis, Oregon, there were several papers on this bulge in the "Hazards and Risks from Cascade Volcanoes" session. Apparently it was discovered in April 2001; the GSA even sent out a press release about the bulge in May 2002.

IANAM: From what I hear, the Bering Strait is not the best place to be wandering around in ferries, what with the nasty winter storms and all that. (M is for Meterologist)

Geologically, there is evidence for a Bering block, which strikes me as a bad thing to try put a tunnel through:

http://www.geosociety.org/pubs/1197geo.htm#S5