Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rubber Duckies For Global Warming Research

Posted by kdawson on from the next-time-try-penguins dept.

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."

7 of 167 comments (clear)

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

    This is a dupe.

  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. 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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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.