Slashdot Mirror

Yes

It's a news article. It only has the amusing details.

People usually believe that you can carbon date a piece of fossil and make a statement that it is 250,000 years old, but it is not the case. Radiocarbon dating only works up to about 50,000 years.

Fortunately they didn't use carbon dating for this fossil.

University of Arizona page about this discovery:

The new cranium from Gawis appears to be intermediate between the earlier Homo erectus and later Homo sapiens and may be sampling a single lineage. At the discovery site and nearby areas, significant archaeological collections of Late Acheulean stone tool-making tradition and numerous fossil animals were found, opening a window into an intriguing and important period in the development of modern humans. The southwest portion of the project area near the Gawis River contains the youngest part of the archive which is estimated to the Middle Pleistocene. Most of the sediments containing the cranium are sands and silts, not datable by standard geologic methods. However, the region contains many active and recently active volcanoes that erupted periodically, blanketing the local landscape with thin, gray-colored layers of volcanic ash. These volcanic ash layers hold the key to dating the Gawis cranium and associated stone tools. Some ash layers in the Gona project area can be directly dated by the 40Ar/39Ar method, and others, by virtue of their distinctive chemical composition, can be matched to correlative dated layers outside the Gona area providing the opportunity to make this one of the best-dated human ancestors notes Jay Quade, Gona project geologist.

Here is the REAL missing link.

A New Hominid Cranium from Gona, Afar, Ethiopia
Gona Palaeoanthropological Research Project, CRAFT Stone Age Institute, Indiana University
Scientists conducting palaeoanthropological field research at Gona, in the Afar Administrative State of Ethiopia have discovered a significantly complete cranium of a human ancestor estimated to be Middle Pleistocene in age. The new hominid was discovered at Gawis (pronounced "gow-wees"), in the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project study area of Ethiopia. The discovery was reported by Sileshi Semaw, Director of the Gona Project, who is based at CRAFT Stone Age Institute, Indiana University, USA.

And it goes on to give details of the discovery and some photos of the skull and its discoverers. Seeing as it was only found a few weeks ago, there obviously is lots more work before any conclusions can be drawn.

And though it's predicable, of the 500 or so comments so far, about 99% are just recycling the same boring fucking flamewar about creationism vs evolution that happens every time an excuse occurs in an article here. No one is paying any attention to the specific discovery.

Personally, for instance, I found it interesting that it was an Ethiopian scientist credited with the discovery, though sponsored by an American university. That this terribly poor country can still contribute to real science is heartening. So when Americans make evolution illegal, there will be someone to carry on the torch of scientific enquiry.

It might be that I wasn't clear enough, and it's also that you seem to have misunderstood me to some extent. If this was the case then please accept my apologies.

If you live in San Francisco, then you should know that the 1989 quake, as did the 1906 quake, resulted in some significant changes to building regulations, including highway bridge regulations, after it was noticed that several standard precautions already known about hadn't been implemented properly or effectively. If you live there, you're already paying extra to live in buildings of a higher standard than you might live in elsewhere. Also as much as they demand attention for preparation, earthquakes simply don't occur as often as severe storms. I also live in an Earthquake risk zone, and I pay extra for it too. Will my government bail us out if an Earthquake strikes? Sure, at least I hope so, but the chances of that actually happening are still considerably average over the next several hundred years. We might be hit tommorrow, or not for a thousand years. Like you, we also pay our way, and I'd like to think that a bailout cost every few hundred years would be insignificant compared with the economic return of being here.

It's completely true that sometimes there are very good reasons for living in dangerous places, especially when it's economic to do so. Maybe there's a big and very accessible harbour there, for instance. Alternatively, volcanic ash that surrounds volcanoes is great for producing crops efficiently. I'm not trying to suggest that people shouldn't be allowed to live in dangerous places across the board, or that a fence should be put up to stop people visiting on the off-chance that a disaster will strike. (For hurricanes it's not too difficult to predict their impact in a reasonable time, anyway.) But I think there should definitely be some restrictions on building in the places that are obviously most at risk, and likely to be subject to natural disasters again and again.

But come on, the coast of New Orleans is going to be hammered by big hurricanes over and over again from now on. The only difference between now and 50 years ago is the recent 50 year lapse in the standard weather pattern. During this time people became complacent and started building in places where they really shouldn't have built. Now that the pattern's resuming and they've finally been hit again, the response isn't to say "Oops, we shouldn't have done that.. we'd better pull back to where we were". On the contrary, the response is to spend billions of dollars trying to devise ways to let people continue living in places below sea level that will be repeatedly exposed to severe hurricanes, and that people never would have wanted to live in if they hadn't had an opportunity to establish themselves during an inconsistent patch of climatic conditions. To top it off, the methods being devised are probably not going to work with any certainty or effectiveness, and the area will continue to be a sink for other people's money that could otherwise be spent on much more useful things -- or alternatively given back to them if you happen to think that way.

Really, to be honest, New Orleans is in the US and I'm not deeply concerned about how you choose to run your internal affairs except when they have spinoffs that affect me. If you want to spend billions of dollars on subsidising people's poor choices of living locality, by all means do so and who am I to argue? It's not even my money. I do find it quite perpelexing to look at, though.

Locally, in New Zealand, I am concerned, because the places that cost the most to bail out of disasters are the small coastal towns that are demonstrably in locations subject to severe conditions (between their attractive sunshine). These places don't provide a lot of tax anyway. With a few exceptions, they tend to be full of people living there in retiremen

I know we don't have the previous satellite images from years gone by, but would it be practical to use some sort of image diffing program to look for changes in satellite imagery in the future? Yes, you'd get all the new building activity and whatnot, but we should also be able to tell when new craters hit (or other bigger changes happen) automatically. 'course, I've no idea how often global satellite images are updated, or how long it takes, so it might not be practical any time soon... Hundred years or so from now, it would be fun (if nothing else) to watch movies of how areas changed, both from direct human changes (buildings, etc) and from natural forces (coastal erosion and so on).

As for how long it would take to re-image the entire planet: a little more than a month, at minimum, but probably more like a year on average. The calculation is easy: it takes about 90 minutes to make one orbit of the Earth in low orbit. If we assume a conservative low orbit altitude of 100 miles and a conservative aperature for the orbital camera of 22 degrees, we get a ground track about 40 miles wide. The Earth's circumference is about 24,000 miles so it would take 600 orbits to get imagery strips covering the entire equator (assuming a polar or near-polar orbit). That would take at least 600*90 minutes = 5400 minutes / 60 minutes in an hour = 900 hours / 24 hours in a day = 37.5 days.

You can already get time-lapse movies and comaprison photos showing coastal erosion and human impact, the difference over only 10 years is quite noticable (heck, the difference from year to year for barrier islands is astonishing).

The Wikipedia article cites UN sources.

And where do you think that the UN gets it's figures for US CO2 production? From the US Government. The US government EPA website documents:

"In 2003, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,900.2 Tg CO2 Eq[ivalants]." of which 5,841.5 was CO2 and the remainder was other greenhouse gasses.

The US government website for the US Geological Society page on volcanic gasses says:
"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year."

You imply that he is spreading "bizarre disinformation", yet the US government backs up his data 100%.

He was in fact 100% coorect in debunking the absolutely ludacris claim that "Volcanoes put out far more greenhouse gasses than anything humans do". That is simply false, and wildly false. Human activites have been dumping a staggering quantity of CO2 into the atmosphere, orders of magnitute more CO2 than volcanoes and any other natural CO2 source.

You have no credibility.

Or maybe you just play mind games on yourself to find an excuse to filter out any inconvient information that threatens your currently accepted "truths" and threatens your trust in those who led you to believe those things.

Anyone trying to deny human caused global warming today is simply in denail. The details are certainly complex, but the basics are so simple that a child can follow it.
(1) The greenhouse effect is a fact. The greenhouse effect currently warms the earth by about 30C / 45F.
(2) CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
(3) Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were dead flat at about 275 ppm for the previous thousand years, and have been below 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years.
(4) Today we dump gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, an order of magnitude more than natural CO2 sources.
(5) That CO2 has built up, has hit 379 ppm today, and continues to increase.
(6) The rate of industrialization and the rate of increase has been increasing.
(7) Other powerful greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons are also a product of that industrialization, and have been increasing as well.

It would take complete psycological denial to suggest that we could raise CO2 from 275 ppm to unprecidented levels of 379 ppm and soon to over 400 ppm and that it would somehow not have any effect at all, not to mention the other greenhouse gasses. It would take complete psychological denial to suggest that the currently measured global increases in temperature are merely coincidental. It would take complete psychological denial to suggest that the widespread thawing of tundra permafrost is merely coincidental. It would take complete psychological denial to suggest that the massive melting now seen in glaciers and the polar icecaps is merely coincidental. Anyone claiming or defending the claim that "volcanoes put out far more greenhouse gasses than anything humans do" is disconnected from the facts of reality.

-

The Wikipedia article cites UN sources.

And where do you think that the UN gets it's figures for US CO2 production? From the US Government. The US government EPA website documents:

"In 2003, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,900.2 Tg CO2 Eq[ivalants]." of which 5,841.5 was CO2 and the remainder was other greenhouse gasses.

The US government website for the US Geological Society page on volcanic gasses says:
"Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year."

You imply that he is spreading "bizarre disinformation", yet the US government backs up his data 100%.

He was in fact 100% coorect in debunking the absolutely ludacris claim that "Volcanoes put out far more greenhouse gasses than anything humans do". That is simply false, and wildly false. Human activites have been dumping a staggering quantity of CO2 into the atmosphere, orders of magnitute more CO2 than volcanoes and any other natural CO2 source.

You have no credibility.

Or maybe you just play mind games on yourself to find an excuse to filter out any inconvient information that threatens your currently accepted "truths" and threatens your trust in those who led you to believe those things.

Anyone trying to deny human caused global warming today is simply in denail. The details are certainly complex, but the basics are so simple that a child can follow it.
(1) The greenhouse effect is a fact. The greenhouse effect currently warms the earth by about 30C / 45F.
(2) CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
(3) Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were dead flat at about 275 ppm for the previous thousand years, and have been below 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years.
(4) Today we dump gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, an order of magnitude more than natural CO2 sources.
(5) That CO2 has built up, has hit 379 ppm today, and continues to increase.
(6) The rate of industrialization and the rate of increase has been increasing.
(7) Other powerful greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons are also a product of that industrialization, and have been increasing as well.

It takes complete psycological denial to suggest that we could raise CO2 from 275 ppm to unprecidented levels of 379 ppm and soon to over 400 ppm and that it somehow would not have any effect at all, not to mention the other greenhouse gasses. It takes complete psycological denial to suggest that the currently measured global increases in temperature are merely coincidental. It takes complete psycological denial to suggest that the widespread thawing of tundra permafrost is merely coincidental. It takes complete psycological denial to suggest that the massive melting now seen in glaciers and the polar icecaps is merely coincidental.

the only questions are how big will the effect will be and how disruptive they will be, exactly what other side effects it will be and how disruptive they will be, and whether we want to do anything to dial back on the magnitude and speed of the already unavoidable increase, and if do what to do something what we want to do.

-

According to the USGS, even if the only ice to melt is Greenland's and the West Antarctic sheet, that's 14.61m. You can do the math, but 48 feet is over 37% larger than the 35' estimate I gave.

The angle of the shallows of the seas are close enough to vertical, compared to their huge area, that practically none of the rise is absorbed by them. In fact, the higher tides and more frequent inundating storms from the warmer, wetter, more chaotic atmosphere will see the sea's area increase even more, as the water gets spread around kineticly.

The sad truth is that there is very little mitigation of the damage from all that land ice melting into the seas. Another factor is the collapse of the ThermoHaline Current that keeps Europe inhabitable, due to dilution by fresh water. We're looking at Florida below its narrowest width sinking, along with all but mountaintops in the Caribbean, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Manhattan Island would be partly below the combined Hudson, Harlem and East rivers, if we weren't planning to dam it at the harbor (inside secret).

I know it's so scary a prospect, especially with worse news every few months, that the mind reels. But that doesn't justify the rush to deny it any way that seems convenient. We're staring into the abyss, and it looks like us. We can probably survive, even thrive, if we come to grips now, before it's too late. Help turn the ship around.

What do you think volcanoes are best known for doing? Yeah, I want radioactivity shooting up several KM into the atmosphere and falling everywhere

Most coal fields exhibit a substantial degree of natural radioactivity, and when burned in a power plant it goes right up the stack

No it doesn't, 99.5% of the thorium and uranium gets caught by the fly ash precipitators. Radon gas is released, but then wikipedia gets stupid: if it's released, it's not nuclear waste. The proper claim is that, while operating as designed, coal plants will release more radioactivity than nuke plants. "[...] the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern [coal-fired] power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment."

Moreover, as for radioactive material, with the coal plant, that's it. There's no need for the whole decommisioning process with lots of radioactive material, because the plant itself and the fly ash isn't particularly radioactive. Same source: "One extreme calculation that assumed high proportions of fly-ash-rich concrete in a residence suggested a dose enhancement, compared to normal concrete, of 3 percent of the natural environmental radiation."

And before all you pro-solar, pro-wind, pro-tidal, pro-{insert alternative energy system here} get on my case

Ya gotta have a better argument than that.

On-demand plants like coal-fired ones can help smooth out the peaks and valleys. (I'll admit ignorance on whether any current nuke plants can operate in an on-demand mode and would have any benefit -- such as the fuel lasting longer -- in doing so.) And there are plenty of systems for storing and releasing power, batteries are by no means the only ones. Moreover, lots of industries are perfectly capable of adjusting their output as grid power waxes and wanes, and thus the price falls and rises. Large numbers of windmills in the sparsely populated Midwest could produce a good portion of our power needs, and are nearing cost-effectiveness, even without subsidies like Price-Anderson and the money spent on Yucca Mountain.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html
http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-9 7/FS-163-97.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nucleare nvissues.html
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/coal.htm

WTFUD?

Even WITH reprocessing, even if you dilute the fuel with Thorium to stretch it out, you don't have enough.

There is only ~3.3 million tons [pdf] of Uranium on the planet. That's ALL Uranium, not the fissile U235 which makes up less than 1% of it. But let's assume we only use CANDU type reactors which do not need enrichment.

A 1000 MW nuclear plant goes through about 25 tons of fuel per year. As of the year 2000, we need 11.7 trillion watts [pdf] of continuous power to satisfy demand. (350 quadrillion BTUs per year converts to 11.7 trillion joules per second)

So if you were to build 1000MW powerplants, you would need 11,700 of them. Each using 25 tons of fuel a year for a total of 292,500 tons a year. Without reprocessing and thorium additives and other hybrid fuels, you've only got about 12 years worth of Uranium if we are to produce 100% of our energy needs with Nuclear.

Reprocessing can recover 96% of the uranium from spent fuel, so let's say that we can effectively double the usable fuel through reprocessing... now we have 24 years worth of fuel. This would then include the produced fissile Plutonium being reprocessed into the fuel (MOX fuels).

Now, Thorium? There's an estimated 1.4 million tons [pdf] of Thorium. If all of that can be used (thorium creates fissile U233 when used inside reactors, that's why it's useful) then we just add that to the 3.3 million tons we already have.. in other words, about 43% more fuel. We're up to about 34 years!

And this is assuming year 2000 levels of energy usage...

Am I missing anything? If you think any of the above is wrong then please let's discuss it...
=Smidge=

Quick fact that average volcano spews more polution in an eruption than LA does in a year.

I'd love to know where you got the statistics for the amount of CO2 that LA (a single city) produces in a year. It sounds like a conjured statistic. Even if you're right, that's tiny compared to the total output of the US or the World.

Volcanoes do have an effect on global temperatures. However, volcanoes cause global cooling instead due to aerosols that may have been responsible for the difference in surface and atmosphere temperatures for the past 20 years. Actually, it turns out that the effect could've lasted even longer from the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 which caused "the year with no summer." Furthermore, the amount of CO2 released each year by volcanoes is miniscule according to this article by the USGS:

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

All we need to do is counteract the alleged global warming by triggering a few volcanic eruptions. If we can get a few big eruptions to occur, much like the "cataclysmic eruption of Tambora Volcano in Indonesia, the most powerful eruption in recorded history", http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/VolcWeather/des cription_volcanoes_and_weather.html

"Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer"."

Since we evidently have the ability to warm the Earth on a global scale, we should certainly be able to use science to trigger a few volcanic eruptions. We could cool the Earth right back down again, and start over

Brilliant! Brilliant!

The red cross on a white background has come to symbolize basically any emergency medical support. Like the term "Asprin," it is in broad use enough that it doesn't represent a company or group, but (in this case) a service.

It's not like it was a particularly original symbol to begin with.

Whether you believe humans are causing global warming, or don't effect it.

It's going to happen, so instead of bitching about it we can actually adapt to it.

Volcanic venting releases more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html

We can begin to breed crops that are more resistant to drought and heat (which we already do anyhow http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/articles/broad_ biotec.htm)

Of course plants being more resistant to drought and heat would happen naturally because the plants that weren't would die leaving room for the ones that were to take over the land (natural selection :p), but we as humans can and have been speeding up the process.

Also no massive tidal wave is going to just overtake our coastal cities; we will have plenty of time to move out of the way of the raising water.

One street that can be looked at as well is with higher global temps, there will be higher global evaporation, which in turn will raise global precipitation.

I am FOR Nuclear power. I was just saying that coal consumption is not a concern. Maybe my phrasing was a bit strong. "...the Energy Information Administration (1995) estimated that the United States has enough coal to last 250 years" as per: http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/nca/nca.html

So yes, there is a finite limit to our coal supply, but if we are still primarily powering our country with coal 250 years from now, we will have other issues.

But as great as nuclear is, I think distributed generation is and true Green power is the way to go. For instance, if properly developed, the state of South Dakota could generate enough electricity from wind alone to power the entire western half of the country. Installing integrated photo voltaic roofing shingles (ie: Solar power) in all new residential buildings could reduce demand growth by 75%. Using bacterial scrubbers on coal plants can not only dramaticly cut emissions but they can also be recycled into low emission bio-diesel.

There are many great solutions, and I think Nuclear is one part of the puzzle, but anyone who immediately discredits a form, or puts all of their hopes on one form is either stupid, or has an agenda.

-Rick

I wonder, would this have been news if it was a rock core sample?

Sorta. Really old rocks are news, but a million years isn't much for rocks. The principle holds, yes, but the time scale is entirely different. We have a few zircons from Australia which are almost 4.3 billion years old, so the number would have to be three and a half orders of magnitude bigger.

One of the semantic tricks pulled by the Science News story and perhaps by the original authors is to term consumption a "need". In other words, just because the world is consuming copper at unusually high rates due to its low cost, this consumption is "needed". My take is that once copper rises, the "need" will dissipate.

And that brings me to my final point. Why is this a problem? If copper becomes scarce then its price will rise and people will comsume less of it. My point here is that this problem is already solved. The economy will adjust for it naturally.

Burning coal puts more uranium into the atmosphere than nuclear power does.

Here's a bit of trivia. "These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment. For the average citizen, the radiation dose from coal burning is considerably less." "On this plot, the average population dose attributed to coal burning is included under the consumer products category and is much less than 1 percent of the total dose." "Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm." ( Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance )

I do agree that this is somewhat of an issue, though, in that essay that pops up everywhere now (even though it's really old), Gabbard does raise some points, especially with respect to long term accumulation of hazardous materials. But I'm not a chemist, this might be a non-issue. I've briefly searched for more recent material, but so far haven't come up with anything.

But you are saying that the hard numbers and economic analysis that has already been done is wrong, because your intuition says so!

No such analysis has been posted in this thread, only the rather vague statement that it's not economically feasible (to sustain all of our energy needs from solar energy alone). I have argued, based on intuition, that it is feasible. No agreement on this, so the only solution would be to turn to exact numbers.

Here are some: An area of about 750,000 km^2 covered with todays photovoltaic cells (10% efficient) would be enough to cover total world energy consumption. (Which, in 1998, was 379.7 Quad BTU, average solar energy input is 4.2 kWh/m^2/d.)

That area would be about twice the size of Germany. Less than the size of Nigeria or Sudan.

One square meter of photovoltaic cells costs about $1000 today (actually, $300-$700 but let's use easy numbers). So that would be an upper bound of $750 trillion to pay for those cells. Obviously, the price for solar cells would go down dramatically if such mass production were ever to be attempted. For comparison, since the 1950s, nuclear energy was subsidized by about $0.5-1 trillion.

To me, that project seems well within reach of human civilization.

From TFA:

"With GPS, the displacements are measured second by second," said Bock, who also presented at the American Geophysical Union conference. "Within 70 seconds you have a good idea of the final deformation." In addition to predicting tsunamis, he thinks GPS modules could be used to monitor the activity of volcanoes and landslides in real time. [emphasis mine]

I thought GPS was already used extensively in volcano studies.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Monitoring/GPS/framework .html

No specific mention of real time data whacking in that link? A quick Google, and we find this, for example:

http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/publications/jans sen_etal2002c.pdf

Here, everyone can have a slice: "The boundary is between 25 and 60 km deep beneath the continents and between 5 and 8 km deep beneath the ocean floor."

Since you mention it, there may be signs that volcanism in the western US increased in frequency after the removal of several hundred meters of ice overburden. For example, the Craters of the Moon area in Idaho in the Snake River valley near Idaho Falls had a series of eruptions that seem to have crudely declined in frequency and strength since the end of the last ice age 12k-14k years ago. This volcanic activity is distantly linked to the Yellowstone supervolcano BTW and is probably residual magma from when the hotspot was in the area.

Sort of like posting:

(from Slashdot) Science: New Ocean Being Formed in Africa
(from BBC NEWS) Geologists Witness 'Ocean Birth'

And then explaining that really it MAY be the birth of an Ocean, or MAY be a big rift that will settle down.

Fortunately, doing a bit of research shows that it's just lazy reporting, as many people with detailed knowledge of Geology have been aware of this "triple-junction" of plates, and the events that tend to indicate that the some of the plates will start moving away from each other. For those with a more graphical mind http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/East_Africa .html will help.

My complaint is in how poorly this thing was headlined. It's overselling the news. A giant rift widening is exciting enough, and the article can then speculate that it could become an ocean. If it's generally believed that this rift's becoming an ocean is a foregone conclusion, then there's no need for the disclaimer about rifts stabilizing.

The disclaimer is silly. There's little liability for getting a prediction wrong when the results are projected to be apparent in a million years. It does nothing but weaken the article, muddling the facts with a bunch of posits until you can't determine if this is news or hyperbole.

In East Africa, spreading processes have already torn Saudi Arabia away from the rest of the African continent, forming the Red Sea. The actively splitting African Plate and the Arabian Plate meet in what geologists call a triple junction, where the Red Sea meets the Gulf of Aden. A new spreading center may be developing under Africa along the East African Rift Zone. When the continental crust stretches beyond its limits, tension cracks begin to appear on the Earth's surface. Magma rises and squeezes through the widening cracks, sometimes to erupt and form volcanoes. The rising magma, whether or not it erupts, puts more pressure on the crust to produce additional fractures and, ultimately, the rift zone.

East Africa may be the site of the Earth's next major ocean. Plate interactions in the region provide scientists an opportunity to study first hand how the Atlantic may have begun to form about 200 million years ago. Geologists believe that, if spreading continues, the three plates that meet at the edge of the present-day African continent will separate completely, allowing the Indian Ocean to flood the area and making the easternmost corner of Africa (the Horn of Africa) a large island.

From Understanding Plate Motions

The difference between Magnetic North and True North historically (magnetic declination) is constantly changing. Clued people who use magnetic compasses are well aware of the dynamic nature of magnetic declination and take it into consideration when determining compass directions. For more information see http://erg.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs03501.ht ml and/or http://www.geography.wisc.edu/sco/maps/magneticdec lination.php

The trouble with biodiesel (especially in the U.S.) is that it's usually grown in the Great Plains, and the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies a big chunk of the Plains, is running out of water for irrigation. 1 2.

That we get 80% of our total energy from dinosaurs is my biggest concern. True, energy from dinosaurs is inexpensive, and the inefficiencies in storing large amounts of electrical energy in a portable fashion present challenges, but these are challenges we must meet while we curtail our energy consumption.

I like the idea of tapping into the energy we've put (and trapped) in the atmosphere; such an approach makes good use of existing resources.

I think it would be great for Xenu to throw all the Scientologists into
an opening that looks like everyone's favourite internet celebrity ...

THIS IS REALLY ONE OF THE PICS

Use your common sense; 14 hikers tumbling into a volcanic collapse would have made the news everywhere in the US. Yet you will find zero about this on Google, despite this having supposedly happened this year. And you will find plenty of links about the handful of actual deaths.

We visited the Volcano National Park 18 months ago. While it was very active at the time - it was an awesome sight. At the end of Chain Of Craters road (see map), there is this sign which explains what happened.

Actually a partial collapse of the bench did happen in August 2005, taking ~11 acres (second to last paragraph). As for the deaths, I'm repeating what the park ranger told me. Maybe he was telling the truth, or maybe he wanted to scare tourists and exaggerated it, but it looks like others have heard the same. Are you just getting your info from Google, or do you have some first-hand knowledge of the situation?

Did you not see the two hidden hands, anointed of KY, reach in and spread them wide for the Sun to shine in? Those NASA pictures have Goatse all over them. Why can't they stop showing pictures of that crap and just write it down on paper. Which "a picture is worth a thousand words" are they trying to lie to me with?

I visited the Big Island and Kilauea about 2.5 years ago and was able to walk pretty much right up to where the lava was flowing into the ocean (I stayed about 500 yards from the sea). There were lava tubes directly underfoot (I could see the glowing red lava in the cracks in the rocks i was walking on). Also, I was able to get within 5 feet of a breakout (kind of like this http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/kilauea/update/archive/2003 /Jun/20030614-0672_DAS_med.jpg). Quick pointer: make sure you have good batteries in your flashlights if you visit at night. Walking across lava fields in the dark is not fun.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/hazards/oceanentry/deltacol lapse/

Yup, the description kind of sucked, but the link was decent. Before and after photos of the collapsed lava delta from the website linked.

Yup, the description kind of sucked, but the link was decent. Before and after photos of the collapsed lava delta from the website linked.

For a (usually up to date) view of the nearby lava vent that is the source of all this try http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/cam/index.htm It is currently showing yesterday's image.

I guess that by your argument, we should also abandon any town along the mississippi river. I do seem to recall that a large number of the northern states endured massive flooding in 2001, 1997, 1993,...

Lots of places flood. Are you saying that we shouldn't bother rebuilding any place that floods? Ok, I'll play along...we abandon any place that ever floods.

Well the next time a big earthquake hits California people will start to complain about assistance to those idiots that live on a well known seismic fault line...no more living on the Southern California coastline.

Well a few years down the line a big old F5 tornado tears through Oklahoma City and devistates everything in it's path. 500K people have no homes and someone like you starts complaining that they were stupid to live in an area known as Tornado Alley. Screw them, we shouldn't have to assist them in their time of need. You guys are on your own. We abandon any areas that commonly are hit by tornados.

Wouldn't you know it? a few more years down the line Mt. St. Helens erupts and covers hundreds of thousands of people die not only from the lava flow but also the dust cloud that comes with it. You are getting up in your years, but the people are waiting to hear your complaints. You being the man of honor that you are, start the rally to abandon all states that could be affected by another such eruption.

Then lo and behold something happens to your home town. It's another freakish natural disaster and some guy starts lobbying to abandon your home town. Where do you stand now?

As pointed out elsewhere, most places do not have sufficient geothermal resources. And apparently even Iceland uses only geothermal for a small fraction (17%) of its energy needs. Second, the Geysers is near Clear Lake, one of the five regions (or possibly six) in California that are considered to be volcanically active.

As pointed out elsewhere, most places do not have sufficient geothermal resources. And apparently even Iceland uses only geothermal for a small fraction (17%) of its energy needs. Second, the Geysers is near Clear Lake, one of the five regions (or possibly six) in California that are considered to be volcanically active.

Recorded climatic history goes back a very long way. Ice cores show a huge amount about climate and give information over thousands of years

Ice cores contain an abundance of climate information --more so than any other natural recorder of climate such as tree rings or sediment layers. Although their record is short (in geologic terms), it can be highly detailed. An ice core from the right site can contain an uninterrupted, detailed climate record extending back hundreds of thousands of years[my emphasis].

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today! Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.[my emphasis]

Although it would be strange, IBM could certainly give SCO a few Snipes or yes, even Jackalopes

But Duke Nukem Forever will only ever exist in folklore

Continental Drift? Who would dispute that?

People that live here.

More likely, this.

Googling turns up this:
- Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash: Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance - Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks. This observation provides a useful geologic perspective for addressing societal concerns regarding possible radiation and radon hazard.

- Coal Combustion:Nuclear Resource or Danger - Third, large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities. Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner. Collected nuclear wastes that accumulate on electric utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain.

I've heard it elsewhere before. Googled for stats yesterday. Seems like 1982 is the most popular year.

The report is a "pre-announcement" of the railway, and has all the credibility of undiluted Chinese Propaganda. See ChinaView.CN's article http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-10/15/conte nt_3620072.htm for the unadulterated Chinese-English report of the ceremony - the government newsagency report is worth reading for the payout to the projects opponents.

The railway could be a wonderful feat of engineering - but you can't tell from these kind of reports. The railway traverses very inhospitable earthquake prone territory. How many slashdotters were aware that the day before the 8th October Pakistan Earthquake there was a large 5.0 richter scale earthquake with epicentre just 6 km from a mountain pass traversed by the railway http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_dxbv.html ?

For a google earth placemark of the location see http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php/Cat/0/Numb er/139349/an//page//vc/1 ?

I couldn't find any media reports of the earthquake - and certainly no mention of any impacts or lack of impacts on the railway.

If the railway survived this unscathed, it would be a great credit to it. So why no report from the Chinese or Western media ?

The Chinese might be good at building monuments, and certainly can spin wonderful propaganda. But until they've built a hint of democracy, can you really give any credit to their claims ?

Go to www.globeexplorer.com. Enter the address "1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC, 20500". Go to town. That's an aerial photo. If it's a map you want, you can buy them pretty much anywhere, or even go to http://www.usgs.gov/ and get a topo.

Italy does indeed have earthquakes. They have been recorded from earliest Roman times to the present.

Some information

There is a system for naming martian features. I guess this needs to updated to handle individual rocks.