Slashdot Mirror


Rubber Duckies For Global Warming Research

The Wall Street Journal has a look at global warming research using rubber duckies. The toys have been employed in tracking ocean currents since 1992; but recently NASA robotics expert Alberto Behar released 90 yellow rubber ducks into the melt water flowing down a chasm in a Greenland glacier. "Each duck was imprinted with an email address and, in three languages, the offer of a reward. If all goes well, Dr. Behar hopes that one day they will emerge 30 miles or so away at the glacier's edge in the open water of Disko Bay near Ilulissat, bobbing brightly amid the icebergs north of the Arctic Circle, each one a significant clue to just how warming temperatures may speed the glacier's slide to the sea."

34 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a dupe.

    1. Re:Dupe by mrmeval · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yea I posted on the other one that if they'd just throw more ducks and plastic and crap in there'd be no evaporation and no glowbull worming.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    2. Re:Dupe by nmg196 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the dupe is intentional. They're actually going to post this story another 88 times and see if any of the other versions end up being read by a different demographic.

  2. Irony. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    Raise your hand if the prospect of an environmentalist dumping plastic into the ocean for research purposes is deeply amusing.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. Rubber duckie, you're the one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rubber duckie, you're so fun.

    1. Re:Rubber duckie, you're the one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You make bathtime lots of fun. Rubber ducky I'm awfully fond of you. Too bad I must now go litter our oceans with your cute little yellow non-biodegradable petroleum product carcasses.

  4. Re:Pollution Anyone? by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh come off it! The amount of possible environmental damage of such a small release is easily offset by the potential gain in knowledge. I really hope that my humor detector is broken or something because if you are serious this kind of nonsense gives environmentalism a bad name.

  5. Great idea, it's happened before by accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure this is where he got the idea.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464768/Thousands-rubber-ducks-land-British-shores-15-year-journey.html

    1. Re:Great idea, it's happened before by accident by popmaker · · Score: 3, Informative
      That's right. From the article:

      Indeed, it was a shipment of such bath tub toys washed overboard in the Pacific during a 1992 storm that accidentally launched this unusual field.

  6. What do they expect to prove with this? by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From what I could tell when I RTFA, they already suspect that the melt water from the glacier reaches the ocean and I doubt that anybody would have any reason to dispute this. If and when somebody reports finding one, they'll have proved this. TFA talks about learning about conditions under the glacier, but makes no mention of how. There are no instruments inside the duckies or any way to record what they go through, so how can the scientists learn anything from them, other than the (as I pointed out above) obvious fact that the melt water reaches the sea?

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How long it takes is rather important.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by ductonius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're not only wondering where the water goes, but how long it takes to get there and where it goes after that.

      If they all come out at once then we know the routes they all took about the same route, or the routes they took were all more or less direct. If they emerge over years or even decades then we know some are becoming trapped, only to be released later. What if a duck washes up in India, twelve years after it was released in Greenland?

      They're interested in knowing *everything* that could happen to these ducks after they're released. Furthermore, data from this experiment could confirm or falsify other oceanographic theories, all for $200 worth of rubber ducks.

    3. Re:What do they expect to prove with this? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In that case, they probably wouldn't learn much about glacier melt, but they could learn something about the ocean currents in the region.

  7. Yes, but what if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is all fun and games until the Italians get a hold of the ducks and hold them for ransom. Then our world will have no defense against global warming. What will these "scientists" be saying when the Italians control our weather with their nefarious ices?????

    1. Re:Yes, but what if by fractoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      See, if I found one of these I don't think I could restrain myself from doing one of either (a) sending the duckie to Switzerland and claiming it had washed up at the beach, or (b) giving it to my kids and telling them to keep it until THEY get old at which time they should report it found.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  8. Spam begets research begets spam by Valacosa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Each duck was imprinted with an email address and, in three languages, the offer of a reward.

    "This duck was lost by a Nigerian prince. Email this address to claim your reward."

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
  9. This is showmanship, not science by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The melt waters flowing under the glacier and through small streams will flow through gravels and other obstructions that the rubber duckies can't flow through. Thus, any data coming back will have a huge caveat hanging over it and will be rather useless from a scientific point of view. Radioactive tracers etc can give far better information.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  10. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by Ironsides · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Greenland Glaciers can be over a mile thick in places. I doubt GPS signals can penetrate 10 meters of ice. Sorry, but there really is no way to track them. Even supplying a power source for that long in that small of a package would be dificult.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  11. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article says he already tried a GPS tracker, and it failed to report in. I suppose he figured that rather than continuing to toss in expensive devices, he'd try a larger number of cheaper objects. If nobody finds them, at least it wasn't a big waste of money.

    By the way, there are already robot floats in the ocean which can be tracked to show ocean currents (ARGO). Most of them don't use GPS, though, but Doppler radio tracking (here).

  12. NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's publish the rubber duckies for Global Warming Research and ignore Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA headed by James Hansen which published falsified data. James Hansen is a global warming alarmist.

    A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

    This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

    So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

    This is simply another proof that the mainstream media is no longer interested in facts or reporting unbiased news, just like during the election of the Anointed One. Rather, they simply parrot agendas that fit their own opinion.

    1. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt it was intentional, but certainly Al Gore wants Global Warming to be true since fear mongering about it makes him money.

    2. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Ambitwistor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's publish the rubber duckies for Global Warming Research and ignore Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA headed by James Hansen which published falsified data.

      I hate to break it to you, but making a clerical mistake is not the same as "falsifying data".

      This is simply another proof that the mainstream media is no longer interested in facts or reporting unbiased news

      Uh, no, it's a sign that quickly-fixed data reporting errors which have no impact on any major climate studies are not front page news.

      I also hate to break it to you, but minor errors are found and fixed in scientific data sets all the time. It's only news when the data error is the basis for some important scientific conclusion. (That has been the case, for instance, with the XBT ocean thermometers and the UAH satellite data.)

      Your post is a prime example of how ridiculously polarized the global warming debate has become. You're grasping at straws, man. A mistake in two month's data reporting, which has nothing to do with James Hansen personally, is not a global scientific conspiracy nor a disproof of global warming.

      just like during the election of the Anointed One

      Anointed One? Yeah, you really sound like an impartial arbiter of scientific accuracy. You might want to tone down the hypocrisy while whinging about "bias".

    3. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Kohath · · Score: 2, Funny

      You don't understand. The glacier is melting at 0.2 ducks per year! Prior to this experiment, the glacier was melting at zero ducks per year. It has increased 2 whole ducks per 10 year period! At this rate of increase, the entire population of ducks will be exhausted by 2142! Don't you care about the ducks?

      The only upside is that, barring any additional interference, the glacier's melting will return to zero ducks per year once all the ducks are gone.

    4. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by izomiac · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Clerical mistakes can happen, but in this case it's essentially falsifying data just without the intent. If something unexpected happens then one should look for errors first. Instead, it seems like this researcher just assumed that it was more support for a theory he liked. Little things like this can add up across various studies, leading to a theory being unduly strong (self perpetuating). In any case, it's pretty shoddy work to let an obvious outlier make it into a study.

      how ridiculously polarized the global warming debate has become

      Quite true. Personally I've become nearly apathetic upon the realization that both sides exaggerate to the point of dishonesty. Well, really it's the extremists on either side that do the lying, but since the issue is so polarized there's the illusion (perhaps becoming reality) that they speak for their respective groups.

    5. Re:NASA's shoddy (fraudulent?) work by Hellsbells · · Score: 5, Informative

      About the author of this opinion article:

      He has claimed that Asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder", and the BBC has accused him of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Criticism

      He is not a credible person.

  13. Reward by renegadesx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Missing: One large yellow rubber duck, answers to the name 'Rubber Duckie'
    Has made apperances on childrens television shows
    Please report any information on the whereabouts on Rubber Duckie to Ernie, Sesame St NY. +123 (456) 789-10-11-12
    Cash reward

    --
    Make SELinux enforcing again!
  14. Disko Ducks? by johnkennethhunter · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the ducks first hit open water at Disko Bay, are these ducks intended to be called the Disko Ducks? [Wikipedia]

  15. Next month's story by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientists are extremely alarmed over a new phenomenon recently observed in the arctic glaciers. Melt water, which normally flows through micro rivers deep in the glacier until it reaches the sea, has started to flow over the surface instead, accelerating the rate at which the ice melts. "It's like something went and plugged up the flow, and now it's backing up like a giant toilet with a rubber duck stuck in it." remarked one researcher.

    The researchers are currently seeking a $10 million grant to investigate the cause of this disturbing event.

  16. Re:Pollution Anyone? by MadnessASAP · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now lets all calm down, nobody here needs to gain any knowledge.

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  17. No phishing here by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's no phishing. It sounds more like paultrying.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  18. Re:GPS tracker anyone? by narcberry · · Score: 3, Funny

    Embed a hit single from Mariah Carrey in each one. Let the RIAA find them.

    --
    Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
  19. Re:Saving the world by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It will make people eat more, you could expect it to make them eat just enough to make up for the energy spent. The point being, that food is everything but green. There's lots of trucking/tractoring involve in the making and transportation of everything you eat, your food itself produces polluting crap (i.e. how pig shit pollutes underground water), and so on. Unless they're all trying to become skinny, people are going to eat more if they spend more. i'm just knocking on the myth of green/free human energy, which is complete hippie bullshit, and a fallacy comparable to the broken window fallacy.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  20. Re:What if by narcberry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they show up soon -> Proof of Global Warming.
    If they show up in 100 years -> Proof of Climate Change.

    Either way, we need to stop whatever we're about to do.

    --
    Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
  21. Re:Saving the world by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Using dollars is not a good metric. Food production is heavily subsidized; the price you pay for food at the grocery store in no way represents its actual costs to produce. (And it gets even worse when you try to take into account the externalities of food production that are allowed to be placed on the public without recompense -- the runoff from farms into water supplies and the Gulf, for one example.)

    A better way is to look at energy and calories. The exact values depend on the food, your location, and other factors, but it's not atypical for 1 calorie of food energy to use over 100 calories of petroleum energy in its creation, transportation, packaging, and retail sale. If you buy nothing but raw foods at farmers' markets, the number will of course be lower, but even something as innocent as iceberg lettuce can have a huge energy debt. Michael Pollan does an analysis in one of his books, and if you are on the East Coast, eating lettuce from California, it's something like 4500 cal of petroleum for the measly 80 cal of human-consumable energy in the lettuce. It's much worse for heavily-processed foods.

    I am a big proponent of bicycling, but it's not necessarily as obvious a win on carbon-emission grounds as it might appear. There are lots of other good reasons to bike, though. (To name a few, it decreases urban air pollution, which leads to health problems that consume resources, same also with obesity-related issues, if widely adopted it would make the roads safer, etc.)

    I think of it as a "healthy / pleasant lifestyle" choice, rather than an "environmental" choice. You cannot claim to be much of an environmentalist while leading a resource-intensive, Western lifestyle. It simply cannot be done. Even the most "environmentally conscious," bike-riding, CFL-using, Prius-owning, self-righteous neo-hippies are contributing massively to the problem, practically just by getting up in the morning. You cannot eat, drink, shit, or die in America and not be contributing to the problem in some way. (You can't really even kill yourself without incurring a debt, since the way we deal with dead bodies is, in itself, not exactly environmentally sound. Although that's probably the most un-hypocritical approach.)

    The truth is that individual choices matter very little in the grand scheme. If you drive an efficient vehicle, or ride a bike, great -- that's slightly less demand for gasoline, slightly lower prices, and slightly more gas for someone else to put in their Hummer (or someone in India to fuel their shiny new Tata). It's still getting pumped out of the ground as fast as we can find it either way. Our civilization is going to hurtle down the road it's going down, until it runs into something Really Bad -- maybe global warming, maybe Peak Oil, maybe something else -- and either engineers a clever way around it, or collapses in an orgy of suffering and death like nothing history has ever recorded. Whether or not you rode a bike to work won't change the outcome in the slightest.

    It might make you feel a lot better, though, in the meantime. That's why I do it, and why I'd tell anyone they should as well.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."