×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Dr. Bryan Killett About Climate Change and GRACE

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 122

Bryan Killett is a physicist working on the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. GRACE is a joint mission of NASA and the German Aerospace Center which collects satellite data to learn about Earth's changing gravity field, specifically the high frequency changes associated with ocean tides. As the high tide comes in, more water is present, so gravity in that location is temporarily strengthened. These changes are detected with GRACE and used to improve ocean tide models. Dr. Killett provides the open source (GPLv3) code used to process GRACE data on his home page. Bryan has agreed to take a break from measuring gravity fields and answer your questions about GRACE and the climate changes it has revealed. Feel free to ask as many as you like but please confine your questions to one per post.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

122 comments

Letter from Ex-Employees? (1, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#40858783)

What in the world was up with this letter from ex-employees [plantsneedco2.org] (also discussed on Slashdot [slashdot.org])? Was that just totally out of left field? Was there an internal reaction to it? Did you respond?

plantsneedco2.org? (-1)

Apuleius (6901) | about a year and a half ago | (#40858893)

Is there anyone here on /. who falls for that inane bullshit>?

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859009)

Just about everyone on here does. Title should say "Climate Change, Grace and fairy tales".

They make fun of creationists but don't notice that this stuff is no different. Arrogant, libtards most of em.

Classic Projection (1)

microbox (704317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40864249)

They make fun of creationists but don't notice that this stuff is no different. Arrogant, libtards most of em.

Psychologists call that projection [wikipedia.org]. It is one of the key ego defence mechanisms [wikipedia.org], and is present surprisingly often in politically motivated speech, due to the cognitive bubble [rpi.edu].

Somebody is being an arrogant %&*#-tard. It must be the 1000s of scientists of all political persuasions, who have dedicated their lives to what Karl Rove pejoratively referred to as [wikipedia.org]the reality based community [wikipedia.org].

Of course you have the "truth", and your mind is firewalled to uncomfortable ideas.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (1, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859273)

referenced document for the below post [quackwatch.org]

Yes, because most slashdotters aren't very good at applying the pseudoscience test to ideas. Climate change pretty clearly falls into the realm of 5-15% depending on how generous you are for pseudoscience characteristics. Compared against obvious pseudoscience like astrology or homeopathy which tend to score in the 95-100% range. And "skeptic" theories tend to hit in the 30-50ish% range, depending on the extent to which they allege conspiracy.

But people don't operate that way, especially techies like us. We don't apply strict rules to our understanding of things. We build mental frameworks that help us problem solve complex problems that fall back to hundreds of "what if?" solutions without necessarily caring about the validity of them. Our group is one of problem solvers, and not understanding and interpreting data as accurately as possible. We're easily taken with concepts that endorse our own perspective, and that actually helps with the kind of work many of us do. We're generally smart people here, but we fall back on our intuition, and are easily fooled by the BS the GP presented.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859765)

" And "skeptic" theories tend to hit in the 30-50ish% range, depending on the extent to which they allege conspiracy."

Alleging conspiracy is not a valid measure of pseudoscience. While it is true that popular culture derides those who they perceive to be "conspiracy theorists", alleging conspiracy has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying science. Nor, for that matter, is a bald allegation any evidence either for or against any actual conspiracy.

While it is fun to laugh at such theories, it is important to remember that the actual historical record contains a huge number of documented and proven conspiracies, many small, but also many great.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (3, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860669)

It's true that sometimes conspiracies actually exist. However claims that mainstream science is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress some bit of research makes it more likely to be pseudo-science, because (far) more often than not the claims are false. It's not a guarantee that it's pseudo-science but it is a red flag that indicates further examination may be required.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#40864137)

"However claims that mainstream science is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress some bit of research makes it more likely to be pseudo-science, because (far) more often than not the claims are false."

You are confusing raw probability with evidence. They are two very different things.

This is precisely why racial profiling doesn't work. Let's just say hypothetically (without going into details of demographics which are irrelevant to the argument): 30% of the crime in Neighborhood A is committed by black people.

That statistic says NOTHING about THIS particular black person whom you just met in Neighborhood A.

Without much more information, you cannot attribute mass probabilities to specific events. It is invalid to do so.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#40864223)

That might not have been a great example, even though it does illustrate the point.

I will put it a different way.

Let's say you're a professor, who has come to realize that his student's papers closely follow Sturgeon's Law (that is: 90% of them are crap).

So when a new semester rolls around, and his new students are turning in their first assignments, he scarcely bothers to look at them. Because he knows that they're all 90% crap. (I pulled a subtle switch on you here, in case you didn't notice.)

But later he realizes that a couple of the papers are real feats of genius, that might actually transform the field. (Maybe not likely, but possible.)

Because, see, although it is true that 90% of them were crap, you cannot judge them individually by that statistic. 90% of them in bulk may be worthless, but that says nothing about THIS paper you have in your hand. The statistic is worthless for judging it. The only way you will know for sure how good THAT paper is -- even if it is by someone you are familiar with and despise -- is to actually read the contents of the paper. Trying to assign the bulk statistic to the individual instance beforehand is simply not valid procedure. It doesn't work. Ask any statistician.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (1)

tbannist (230135) | about a year and a half ago | (#40866911)

I suggest you read the link provided [quackwatch.org]. It seems to me, that In the original post, i kan reed, was referring to the percentage of pseudoscience characteristics exhibited by AGW and alternate theories. That's not a statistical measure of how many of the theories are correct, it's the percentage of red flags they raise from the list. Raising even one of the flags isn't a good sign, raising multiple ones is very bad. I'm not sure if there is even a single example of a theory that trips half or more of the flags and is actually science.

Your assertion that "[t]rying to assign the bulk statistic to the individual instance beforehand is simply not valid procedure" is correct but not applicable, because the percentage of red flags raised would be assigned to each individual theory after evaluating it. I'm sure that you would agree that examining and then evaluating something is reasonable.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#40874239)

I did read the article, and I don't see a connection between the statements made there, and the statements I Kan Reed made about pseudoscience and conspiracy.

The one thing it DOES say that might relate, however loosely, is that pseudoscientists are fond of conspiracies. But even if that is true, you can't validly turn it around, and say a claim of conspiracy makes one a pseudoscientist. Logic doesn't work that way.

I'll stand by my comments, thanks.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (0)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859877)

That's funny - I used the same criteria, and it looks like AGW fails 3 of the 6 tests. How do you get 5-15%?

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (1)

tbannist (230135) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860595)

He's using the longer list with 22 characteristic of pseudo-science, he's saying that climate change could be showing between 1 and 3 of those characteristics.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#40861051)

Didn't even click the link. Didn't present your own findings. Trolling concluded.

To respond to your request:
Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts:
DOES NOT APPLY climate change, as data driven observation is at the core of the argument. New facts brought up by critics are addressed with data.
MAY APPLY TO "skeptics", depending on exactly what they are skeptical of. It is an undeniable fact that, for example, temperature measurements are going up quite rapidly year-to-year.

Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy
Given the criteria listed in the linked article: DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. An opinionated counter-argument could be given, if one were unwilling to examine the definition listed with any seriousness. Global examination of carbon/temperature data with a wide variety of tools, cross-indexed with each other, tabulated, peer reviewed, and published in complete detail does not qualify as sloppy. Sorry.
ALSO DOES NOT APPLY to "skepticism" in any meaningful way.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.
COULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY to climate change: I think we can agree "we're all going to burn due to our negligence" is an emotionally appealing hypothesis. I don't really think the hypothesis came before the climatological observation, looking at the early papers in google scholar, though. Lower temperature years are included in every single report on global warming, in spite of the fact that, at face value, that would appear to a layman to undermine the hypothesis.
COULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY to "skeptics": I think we can also agree "we don't have to change anything because we're not doing anything wrong" is also emotionally appealing. Being that this is the null hypothesis position, it's fair to say that the "hypothesis first" doesn't really apply. However, selective examination of data IS an extraordinarily common argument from this camp, and to treat it as a non-component would be disingenuous. (i.e. "it was cold in winter")

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. Not in the slightest. "stories" do not make up the basis of support for the theory, known thermodynamic effects, and temperature trends do.
MAY APPLY to some forms of "skepticism". As per above "winter is cold" type arguments, are strictly anecdotal, and do not actually examine the temperatures in winters globally compared to previous years.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. The verification comes entirely in the form of statistical analysis of temperatures versus previous predictions. Relatively accurate, but requiring improvements in predictive techniques.
DOES NOT APPLY to "skepticism" BUT IN A VERY BAD WAY because no counter claims or predictions to test. The null hypothesis of "no change" is clearly invalidated, but no valid alternate predictions are given instead. This is a serious sign of pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
DOES NOT APPLY TO EITHER, if you examine the listed definition in my link, this is about data being purely subjective and prone to multiple understandings depending on cultural factors like language.

Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
DOES NOT APPLY TO EITHER. Feel free to contest this if you want.

Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change, predictions from 10,20, and 30 years ago are all being tested and examined today.
APPLIES TO "skepticism". "Skeptics" tend to hide behind vague claims such as "it's a natural cycle" without providing assertions about what that means in terms of climate.

Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. The underlying hypothesis and the data share a very straightforward relationship. Carbon dioxide decreases the relative radiation of energy from the earth, thus temperature equilibria are higher as carbon dioxide levels increase. Consistent with both observation and it's own system.
SORT OF APPLIES TO "skepticism": certainly within the community you have completely contradictory positions like "it's not getting warmer" or "it's getting warmer, but humans are not at fault" and "humans are causing global warming, but the impacts are not what they think". It's understandably the case in a politically contentious argument, but good science should have a strong counter argument that is the main null hypothesis. This is a subtle symptom of pseudoscience in itself.

Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change: The mechanism is very clearly defined within the basis of existing scientific fields of thermodynamics and climatology. There is no ambiguity at the heart of the argument, like "what if you're wrong and climate change is real". It makes a very clear point, from a very clear mechanism.
DOES APPLY to "skepticism". "We don't know" or "weather is complicated and we can't predict it" are very common cries in these debates.

Pseudoscience does not progress.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change: we're getting better data, more accurate models, and more tools in this field every year.
APPLIES to "skepticism". The counter arguments being made today are exactly the same in detail and nature as 30 years ago.

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
APPLIES TO BOTH. With the amount of politics involve, you can't avoid some rhetoric.

Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. As I said before "we could be wrong" is just not a part of climate change theory.
APPLIES to "skepticism". Pretty much their whole argument.

Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
COULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY, BUT DOESN'T. This is not intended to prevent theories on previously unobserved phenomena that apply at a global level. But I could see how you could make that argument. The regularities of temperature increases are the actual basis of the theory. A recent occurrence within the bounds of well understood laws is not purely pseudoscientific.
No comment on skepticism, it seems like it would just be opinion.

Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. A huge percentage of the relevant field supporting the theory is pretty legitimate.
DOES APPLY TO CLIMATE CHANGE. If I had a nickle for every time I heard "big science"

Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. There are no laws of nature that state humans cannot influence climate.
DOES NOT APPLY to "skepticism". No theories advanced.

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change: almost all jargon falls within the existing field of climatology
DOES NOT APPLY to "skeptics"

Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change: existing rules of invalidation are well accepted.
MAY APPLY to some skeptics: for example the "winter was cold this year" people who ignore that it was extraordinarily hot the previous year are willfully ignoring invalidation on their own basis.

Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
N/A to either.

Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
DOES NOT APPLY to climate change, again the mechanism is clearly defined and open to examination. The models can be tested and peer reviewed, their algorithms unbundled and examined.
APPLIES TO ALL "skeptical" counter theories. Every one. "solar cycles are responsible" is never followed by "how? what data supports that? by what mechanism". "it's a natural cycle" is never followed by "here's how the cycle operates, with these feedbacks in place". It's always "this is what happens" and not "this is what happens and how". Very pseudo-scientific.

Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
Let's not insult each other by pretending we believe in magic.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
See previous.

Feel free to contend points you disagree with.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year and a half ago | (#40862491)

Feel free to contend points you disagree with.

I might as well, since you went to so much effort to put this together. For the record, what I was keying on were the six points in the "Science / Pseudoscience" chart, and it was unnecessarily disingenuous of you to claim that (1) I didn't click on the link (I did), and especially that (2) I was trolling (don't be a dick).

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.

DOES NOT APPLY to climate change. The verification comes entirely in the form of statistical analysis of temperatures versus previous predictions. Relatively accurate, but requiring improvements in predictive techniques. DOES NOT APPLY to "skepticism" BUT IN A VERY BAD WAY because no counter claims or predictions to test. The null hypothesis of "no change" is clearly invalidated, but no valid alternate predictions are given instead. This is a serious sign of pseudoscience.

One argument heavily propagated for AGW is "consensus" of scientists or "peer-reviewed papers". A fallacious argument on its face, and while numbers are not subjective, statistics and the criteria to generate them, in this case, often are. Also, your argument about "no predictions to test" applies equally to climate change, as the "predictions" are either based on a probability range too wide to really evaluate, or they are not met before "adjustments" are released to better match observations.

The other subjective criteria often used in the popular press involves selective evidence. For instance, the discredited paper that indicated the polar bear population was endangered, which later proved to be inaccurate, so instead the narrative has changed to "reduction of the arctic ice hunting grounds of the polar bear could eventually lead to a reduced population.

Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test. DOES NOT APPLY to climate change, predictions from 10,20, and 30 years ago are all being tested and examined today. APPLIES TO "skepticism". "Skeptics" tend to hide behind vague claims such as "it's a natural cycle" without providing assertions about what that means in terms of climate.

I don't accept your premise about skeptics, and while you are correct that climate change predictions are tested and examined today, they don't really show a compelling amount of accuracy. Aside from that, skepticism of climate science is mostly about challenging a theory, not advancing one that is more accurate, but simply pointing out that there are too many unknowns to make accurate predictions.

Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity. DOES NOT APPLY to climate change: existing rules of invalidation are well accepted. MAY APPLY to some skeptics: for example the "winter was cold this year" people who ignore that it was extraordinarily hot the previous year are willfully ignoring invalidation on their own basis.

Um, if you listen to the latest news reports, they have a lot of self-proclaimed scientists claiming today that the heat waves and droughts the US is experiencing right now are clear evidence of climate change (and AGW at that). So I think both are guilty on that count.

You make some good points here, but, frankly, I don't think you can compare AGW vs. Skepticism of AGW as being separate disciplines that can be categorized separately as science or pseudoscience. Certainly Climatology is a science. And there is clear evidence of a global warming trend in the 20th century. I think the debate is about how much human activity is contributing to the changes, how much change is happening, and whether a major change in human activity can make a difference.

Theoretical physics is also a science, but there are different theories regarding why things happen. That doesn't make string theory pseudoscience and quantum mechanics more of a real science, it's just that the string theorists are trying to explain things outside the clear observations presented in the standard model.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#40864053)

consensus

This talking point has always bothered me, if consensus is not part of science then why do scientists place so much importance on peer-review? Consensus is not a dirty word in science, it's the modern term for what Karl Popper called "the republic of science", it is a measure of agreement amoungst the experts in a particular field as documented in Journals and text books. It is the difference in confidence between the phrases "A scientists says" and "Scientists says".

[predictions] don't really show a compelling amount of accuracy

The one's I've seen from Hansen (1980's) and those from IPCC (early 90's) are all well within the error bars given with the predictions. Therefore they are accurate to within the stated margin of error which is all you ever get from a scientific prediction. Note that such predictions usually come in sets with different emmission senarios and it's common for intellectually dishonest people to ignore this and present a "worst case senario" prediction as a "most likely senario" prediction in an attempt to ether, discredit the work for political reasons, or try to scare people for political reasons, (depending on wich side of the politics they take)

Um, if you listen to the latest news reports, they have a lot of self-proclaimed scientists claiming today that the heat waves and droughts the US is experiencing right now are clear evidence of climate change.

There are psudeo-scientists on both sides of the political divide on this issue. I have followed the issue with interest since 1981, I don't recommend "news reports" as a reliable source of information about climate science (particularly in the US), and if you are a geek "El Reg" is also a noteable bottomless pit of misinformnation on the issue. I will however say that many reputable climate scientists have been predicting for at least the last decade that the US grain belt is in danger of sever droughts from AGW. The basic physics says the sub-tropical desert zone will dry out more and expand, while at the same time monsoons will become wetter. Both are an expected consequences of increased convection in the equitorial "Hadley Cells". This is complicated by the jet stream in the N. Hemisphere which can cause the western half of the US to be in drought while the other is flooded. Having said that, what is undisputable is that long term climate predictions are much more accurate on a global scale (global temp, humidity, etc) than regional predictions, regional predictions will always be more difficult and less precise.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year and a half ago | (#40864153)

Well. TapeCutter has posted a reasoned, well-written response, entirely free of hyperbole and insults! Where are mod points when you need them?

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#40874363)

I was also amazed.

But for TapeCutter, I do have an answer to one of your questions:

The reason consensus is not science, is because it doesn't matter how many scientists agree that something is plausible; it only takes one counterexample to prove them wrong.

And it has often been INDIVIDUALS, outside the field, who have provided that counter-evidence. Such is the history of science. Recorded history is riddled throughout with individuals proving the "consensus" to be wrong.

Almost EVERY major scientific advance has come about as a result of a discovery that proved the status quo (consensus) wrong, to a greater or lesser degree. If that were not so, individuals would not make discoveries and science could not advance.

So, consensus is not science, because: it cannot be. That's not the way it works. It is not a democracy, it is a set of rules based on evidence. One "vote" can invalidate all the rest.

Re:plantsneedco2.org? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859303)

Even modern browsers don't fall for it.

Re:Letter from Ex-Employees? (2)

khayman80 (824400) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859271)

Yes, it was totally out of left field. I responded [dumbscientist.com] in an internal JPL email, and copied the email to my (other) website.

-Bryan Killett, aka khayman80, aka Dumb Scientist

Observation & Simulations Vs Control (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#40858807)

Your work seems to be primarily centering on observing and simulating these changing gravitational fields. What benefit or detriment could result from controlling such tides? From a science fiction standpoint, do you see this as a possibility? What engineering feat would you propose to achieve it? Is there any reason at all why this might one day be a necessity?

Re:Observation & Simulations Vs Control (2)

khayman80 (824400) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859647)

One modest example is extracting energy from the ocean tides. I've explained [dumbscientist.com] that harnessing tidal power would actually move the moon farther away from the Earth, even faster than its current ~3.8cm/year recession rate. Tidal amplitudes are influenced by the coastlines and bathymetry, so in principle we might eventually be able to change the tidal amplitudes in some location (bigger for more tidal power, smaller for easier navigation) by carefully modifying the bathymetry.

Just to clarify the summary, GRACE primarily studies long-term changes in water storage. It's just my research in particular that focuses on high frequency signals like ocean tides. Also, the open source code mentioned in the summary is just used to produce my personal results, not the official GRACE solutions.

-Bryan Killett, aka khayman80, aka Dumb Scientist

So how much more than 3.8cm per year is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40866413)

If, for example, we took every watt needed for the world out of the tides, how much would the moon get further away?

Or did you not get around to explaining how to work out your claim's proof?

Re:So how much more than 3.8cm per year is it? (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about a year and a half ago | (#40896669)

As I explained in that link, the Earth's rotational kinetic energy is currently decreasing at ~3.8 TW. (Just to compare, the world used 15 TW [wikipedia.org] in 2008.) But anyone who clicked on that link would learn that only ~3% of the lost ~3.8 TW goes into raising the moon's orbit. As Pete Bender pointed out, the other ~97% is converted to heat in the oceans and the core-mantle boundary layer. Because this percentage isn't necessarily fixed, it's very difficult to predict exactly how much faster the moon would ascend from the Earth.

(Apparently I already answered so many questions that the Slashdot editor doesn't think the remainder will be enough for a follow-up story, so I'll try to answer them here as time permits.)

Investigating Gravity? (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#40858821)

If you had unlimited resources and unlimited materials (planet sized masses, black hole measuring devices, you name it), what hypotheses and tests would you construct to give us more information on what precisely gravity is?

Re:Investigating Gravity? (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859323)

Erm, I could point you to someone working on general relativity or quantum gravity. My analysis only uses Newtonian gravity, though special and general relativistic corrections are applied to the GRACE data before they get to me.

Re:Investigating Gravity? (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859849)

I'd be very interested in learning a little bit about the General Relativistic effects observed with GRACE. I hadn't thought about it until you brought it up, but you're right, it does seem to be sensitive enough, and to be observing over a long enough period of time that GR corrections may be observable. Can you observe Lense-Thirring effect? Or are you just correcting geodetic precession?

Re:Investigating Gravity? (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859965)

See here [harvard.edu] and here [sciencedirect.com]. With respect to the Lense-Thirring effect, the first abstract suggests you need both GRACE and LAGEOS, but I don't know if they analyzed GRACE by itself.

Re:Investigating Gravity? (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860267)

Excellent links. However, note that the first link doesn't use GRACE to detect Lense-Thirring frame dragging. It's merely using improved gravity models from GRACE to eliminate measurement noise due to imperfections in our model of Earth's static gravity field that could be mistaken as frame dragging.

Re:Investigating Gravity? (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860767)

See here [harvard.edu] and here [sciencedirect.com]. With respect to the Lense-Thirring effect, the first abstract suggests you need both GRACE and LAGEOS, but I don't know if they analyzed GRACE by itself.

Thanks!

Re:Investigating Gravity? (1)

khayman80 (824400) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860103)

No, frame dragging is only barely detectable by Gravity Probe B, which was designed specifically for that purpose. GRACE relies on highly accurate timing, which requires correcting for time dilation due to special and general relativity. Here's a reference [nasa.gov].

How Much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40858823)

How much money does it cost to run your program and what are the economic benefits?

Why should this money be spent on your project and not on, say, fusion, advanced battery development, hydrogen storage techniques, etc?

Re:How Much? (0, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40858993)

Because understanding tidal dynamics has no easily perceivable economic benefits.

Go back to jacking off to Ron Paul posters, and leave the adults to talk, moron.

Re:How Much? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859065)

Fuck you.

So enlighten us all on the not so easily perceivable economic benefits. Do you even fucking know? Or are you just his boyfriend?

You are no better than those idiots parading through the streets of London with coffins.

Re:How Much? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859141)

What do you suppose happens in oceanic waters, other than you pissing in them? Think about, you fucking halfwit. Better understanding of tides allows us to understand everything from risks of erosion to oceanic currents (affecting everything from weather systems to shipping) to the best upgrades for ports, harbors and other sea-facing services.

Re:How Much? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859677)

I think, dumb shit, that you can't tell us how these studies will benefit us economically. Because while they may make interesting foot notes in some science rag or someone's thesis, there isn't any.

This goes under Blue Sky research, with no well defined benefits other than filling a pay walled journal. While this kind research is important, so is other research which goes back to the original fucking question asshole.

Why is his shit more important than other shit? A legitimate question and that EVERYONE who pays the freight should ask.

Re:How Much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40863399)

Just with tides specifically, more accurate measurements of tides and their variations can improve surveying for tidal power installations, improve understanding coastal erosion (a major economic cost in some areas), improve estimates of risks associated with storm damage to coastal areas. There are still details needed to be worked out about how tidal variations affect ocean current (and I hope you don't need help understanding the economic impact of understanding ocean currents).

And that is just a small subset of work done by the GRACE probe, which also does a lot of work detecting changes in aquifers, movement of magma, and improving geological mapping.

are you or have you ever been a communist? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40858831)

or a muslim?

Please confine your questions to one per post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40858929)

Should I go out with Linda or Amy?

Re:Please confine your questions to one per post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859961)

Should I go out with Linda or Amy?

No. Next question?

Solar Storms (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#40858949)

I always wondered if either of these have any play on the gravitational field and in turn the tides. For example could a very powerful solar storm, in the right conditions, cause a massive tidal shift?

Re:Solar Storms (2)

khayman80 (824400) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859433)

No, tides are caused by gravity, which is caused by mass. Solar storms are violent, but the amount of mass involved is miniscule compared to that of the Sun. A very powerful solar storm wouldn't even cause a small tidal shift.

What does this have to do with Climate Change? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40858989)

What does this have to do with Climate Change? There's no reference to it in any of the pages linked. I assume mapping tides is important if sea level rises, but that's just a guess.

Melting ice (3, Informative)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859215)

GRACE's main use in climate change is to detect the loss of mass from melting glaciers (mostly in Greenland and Antarctica), which results in sea level rise. It can also help map surface currents in the ocean, and track the motion of water through the hydrological cycle.

Re:What does this have to do with Climate Change? (-1, Troll)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859409)

NASA has double-downed on AGW, then went all-in on Climate Change. So anything they do nowadays is related to Climate Change at some level.

NASA is often called a civilian agency, and that is correct, but that just means it's not controlled by the military (Army Navy etc.). It's still a political agency; the people there are picked by politicians, so it tends to reflect political tastes of whoever put them in place (currently Demoliberals)

Re:What does this have to do with Climate Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859557)

NASA has double-downed on AGW, then went all-in on Climate Change. So anything they do nowadays is related to Climate Change at some level.

NASA is often called a civilian agency, and that is correct, but that just means it's not controlled by the military (Army Navy etc.). It's still a political agency; the people there are picked by politicians, so it tends to reflect political tastes of whoever put them in place (currently Demoliberals)

Oh fuck off.

Science like reality must have a liberal bias.

Re:What does this have to do with Climate Change? (3, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#40864697)

Nobody's doubled down on AGW. As the MASSIVE body of evidence removes doubt (except for those who would have their world view threaten by said evidence), its the responsibility of NASA to utilize space based resources to predict, measure, understand and if at all possible mitigate the impacts of AGW. Just as it is the National Forestry's job to plan for fighting and prevent the already growing impact of AGW on large and destructive fires in the Western U.S. There are now places whose fire seasons now run all year. Every agency, that is responsible to serve the public, and for whom there is a measurable impact from AGW is honor bound to do what it can to protect services and prevent loss of life and property. How is any of this inappropriate or antithetical to the proper management of resources?

Raspberry Pi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859071)

How does the Raspberry Pi apply to your project?

I am assuming that the Pi has something to do with it otherwise Slashdot wouldn't have taken an interest in you.

Climate Change (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859109)

Why are aeronautical engineers, astrophysicists, rocket scientists, etc. involved in perpetuating a political agenda based on bad "science" for an administration that refuses to fund the organization's actual purpose?

Re:Climate Change (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859297)

I think it's because they are in the business of science.

Re:Climate Change (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40860097)

I think it's because they are in the business of science.

Weird. Some of the unwashed masses thought that the funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was for the business of aeronautics and space. Bunch of stupid uneducated wankers, obviously.

Re:Climate Change (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860555)

Bunch of stupid uneducated wankers, obviously.

Evidently. Read NASA's mission statement. "Scientific discovery" features prominently. GRACE is a space mission, you know. NASA does tons of scientific space missions, both for Earth observing and other observation.

Re:Climate Change (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860761)

I think it's because they are in the business of science.

Weird. Some of the unwashed masses thought that the funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was for the business of aeronautics and space. Bunch of stupid uneducated wankers, obviously.

I see you haven't read their mission statement. You also forgot to log in, kid.

Re:Climate Change (0)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859355)

Because it isn't bad science. [slashdot.org] Just like it wasn't bad science that cigarettes cause lung cancer despite what tabacco industry-funded scientists and think tanks wanted us to think.

Re:Climate Change (0, Troll)

rrohbeck (944847) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859635)

But, but, but... the Heartland Institute tells us otherwise!
You can't prove that a specific cigarette caused your cancer, you can't prove that *my* SUV causes global warming and you can't prove that global warming causes this year's crops to fail!
So take that, scientists!
Duh. Next thing you want to tell me that the Earth is round, that we landed on the moon or that there are no chemtrails. Jeez, libtards.

Re:Climate Change (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859843)

Because it isn't bad science. [slashdot.org] Just like it wasn't bad science that cigarettes cause lung cancer despite what tabacco industry-funded scientists and think tanks wanted us to think.

No testable hypothesis
No repeatable experiment
No science

Global warming, anthropogenic climat change, or whatever else they want to call it is nothing but shifty statistics applied to old, unreliable, disparate, inconsistent, and intentionally-altered data in a concerted effort to reach a predetermined conclusion in order to support a political agenda (which ultimately is designed to let assholes usurp power and money from other assholes, all at my expense).

Re:Climate Change (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40860049)

Oh gee, another moron with an 8th grade misunderstanding of what science is. "No repeatable experiment"? By that criterion, astronomy, geology, etc. aren't science. "No testable hypothesis?" First, climate change isn't one single phenomenon with one single test. It's a series of interrelated phenomena, each of which are individually testable, starting from the infrared absorption properties of the CO2 molecule all the way up to stratospheric cooling, ocean warming, etc. "No science"? Doesn't even deserve a response.

Re:Climate Change (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860095)

Uh huh. Except that study was lead by an AGW skeptic and funded by groups who had the agenda of disproving AGW. Yet it came to the opposite conclusion. But, no, clearly the study only had that result due to the Koch Brothers being a bunch of libtard envirowackos.

Re:Climate Change (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40860335)

No testable hypothesis
No repeatable experiment
No science

For starters, here's two you can do yourself.

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/identifying-products-combustion
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/globalwarmingexperiment.html

Repeatable, testable hypotheses. SCIENCE!

Re:Climate Change (2)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859593)

Why are aeronautical engineers, astrophysicists, rocket scientists, etc. involved in perpetuating a political agenda based on bad "science" for an administration that refuses to fund the organization's actual purpose?

I'll ask the opposite question: why shouldn't aeronautical engineers, astrophysicists, and rocket scientists be involved in trying to make unambiguous measurements of a critical issue, to try to resolve key questions in a way that's independent of computer models or temperature measurements? Making an independent measurement of key scientific claims using a different technique is pretty much the gold standard of science.

Re:Climate Change (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859799)

Because it's not their field of expertise.
Because they should be focusing on what my tax dollars pay them to do - develop methods for space exploration and explore space.

Re:Climate Change (2)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859899)

Because it's not their field of expertise.

Making gravity measurements, building the instruments to make gravity measurements, and the rockets to fly them, ARE their respective fields of expertise.

Because they should be focusing on what my tax dollars pay them to do - develop methods for space exploration and explore space.

Your tax dollars pay them to build and fly the GRACE mission and many other Earth-observing missions. So they already are focusing on what their tax dollars pay them to do. All of which, by the way, fall under NASA's mission statement.

NASA expertise [Re:Climate Change] (3, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860409)

I'll ask the opposite question: why shouldn't aeronautical engineers, astrophysicists, and rocket scientists be involved in trying to make unambiguous measurements of a critical issue, to try to resolve key questions in a way that's independent of computer models or temperature measurements? Making an independent measurement of key scientific claims using a different technique is pretty much the gold standard of science.

Because it's not their field of expertise.

Precision measurements of the gravity field of the Earth using spacecraft? It most certainly is their field of expertise.

Because they should be focusing on what my tax dollars pay them to do - develop methods for space exploration and explore space.

Here is the wording of the Space Act of 1958, which established NASA and listed its mission and objectives. After declaring that NASA will be a civilian agency to undertake aeronautical and space activities of the U.S. "for the benefit of all mankind," it states:
"The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. (2) ..."

Expanding human knowledge of the Earth and phenomena in the atmosphere: yes, the GRACE objectives fit into the mission that NASA is explicitly instructed to do.

Reference: http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf [nasa.gov]

Re:Climate Change (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860123)

Why are aeronautical engineers, astrophysicists, rocket scientists, etc. involved in perpetuating a political agenda based on bad "science" for an administration that refuses to fund the organization's actual purpose?

I'll ask the opposite question: why shouldn't aeronautical engineers, astrophysicists, and rocket scientists be involved in trying to make unambiguous measurements of a critical issue, to try to resolve key questions in a way that's independent of computer models or temperature measurements? Making an independent measurement of key scientific claims using a different technique is pretty much the gold standard of science.

Because the budget has been cut so much that doing those things means there's no money left for the core mission of ... aeronautics and space?

Re:Climate Change (2)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860245)

Scientific discovery using spaceborne instruments, such as GRACE, is part of NASA's core mission.

Re:Climate Change (-1, Troll)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860629)

Scientific discovery using spaceborne instruments, such as GRACE, is part of NASA's core mission.

But this isn't scientific discovery, since gravity was already discovered 150 years ago. "NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research."

Some tortured logic could be conjured up to claim there is some blue-sky "discovery" that has some chance of being made on this mission, but meanwhile the rest of the explicit mission seems to be getting swept under the rug.

Re:Climate Change (2)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860721)

But this isn't scientific discovery, since gravity was already discovered 150 years ago.

Oh good grief. Talk about tortured logic.

Let me explain this to you simply: the scientific purpose of GRACE is not to "discover gravity". It is directly to measure the Earth's gravitational field. Indirectly, it is to discover a lot of things about geoscience (ice dynamics, hydrology, etc.).

I may also point out to you that (as has been noted elsewhere in the comments) the Space Act which chartered NASA explicitly states that part of its mission is to expand human knowledge of the Earth (using spaceborne technology).

Re:Climate Change (0)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860877)

I can't see how this furthers the exploration of space, which seems to be the very last priority on the budget sheet these days, and the one that gets entirely cut first.

Tell you what - you keep defending this kind of waste of resources, and I'll refocus my efforts from fully funding the agency to eliminating it entirely. Maybe then enough money will be freed up to help the private enterprises that are doing things like ... actually furthering our reach into space.

Re:Climate Change (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40861205)

I can't see how this furthers the exploration of space,

It doesn't further exploration of space. My point is that exploration of space is not the only thing NASA does, nor the only thing that it is tasked to do.

which seems to be the very last priority on the budget sheet these days, and the one that gets entirely cut first.

I'm sympathetic to cuts in both exploration and science, but my point is that NASA is supposed to, does, and should, do both.

Furthermore, my reading of this year's NASA budget [nasa.gov] indicates that Earth Science got a 0.2% cut over the previous year, while Exploration got a 6.5% increase. ("Science" as a whole got a 0.2% increase, due entirely to a 3.7% boost to Planetary Science, which IMHO also counts as space exploration.)

Re:Climate Change (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859795)

Absolutely. Spaceborne measurements of the Earth's gravitational field are both bad science and contradict NASA's primary mission ("to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research").

Recent Greenland Melting (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859113)

We've seen a lot of surface melting on Greenland over the past few weeks. Does GRACE provide enough detail quickly enough so to quantify that melting, and shed any light on how well we understand ice sheet melting dynamics?

Is There Evidence of Shifting Poles (1)

cmplus (681254) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859131)

In your field of study is there any evidence to suggest the possibility the poles are shifting, or at least moving uncharacteristically?

Re:Is There Evidence of Shifting Poles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40860705)

You should ask about the magnetic poles and if increasing/decreasing magnetic fields effect gravity at all? Do they take into account the magnetic fields? And if solar storms impact the larger magnetic field outside the planet...

Or are they just detecting mass levels?

My question is if the melting arctic ice cap will impact the mass up there and will cause a change in the gravity? Does warmer water in the summer weigh more or take up more volume? If snow is less dense than ice (mostly), can you tell where the glaciers are melting and not recovering after the winter?

Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859225)

Will you be starting a Kickstarter campaign?

Focus (1, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859235)

Should science drop the "Climate Change" mantra and get back to basics like pollution and sustainability? I believe climate change has become a political boogeyman and that science would be better off focusing on more clearly defined goals (making renewable energy usage more affordable etc).

Re:Focus (2)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859367)

Should science drop the "Climate Change" mantra and get back to basics like pollution and sustainability? I believe climate change has become a political boogeyman and that science would be better off focusing on more clearly defined goals (making renewable energy usage more affordable etc).

I think you're under the mistaken impression that "scientists" all do one thing at a time.

We already *are* focussing on renewable energy, improved drugs, advances in medicine, the search for the Higgs field...

It's only the media and various special interests with a financial stake in discrediting the inconvenient results of climate science that create such a stir. In the actual world of science and research, climate science is just a small part. It gets far more media attention in proportion to the work and money being spent on it.

Re:Focus (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860435)

Measuring the melting of the Earth's ice sheets, such as the GRACE mission does, is not a clearly defined goal? And should we just stop doing basic geoscience simply because it's politically controversial?

GPS Radio Occultation (2)

Bootsy Collins (549938) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859357)

How have GRACE GPS radio occultation results compared with TEC data from other observations at the same time and along nearby paths (from GPS ground sites, from other radio occultation observations from e.g. C/NOFS or COSMIC, etc.)? Is the GRACE GPS R/O data publicly available? If so, with how much delay? Thanks.

Changing Evaporation Rates (1)

Soilguy (2552550) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859397)

I would like to know if there is an appreciable change in sea surface evaporation rates due to the changes in the gravity at the tidal location. Can the gravitational changes ( though very minute), change weather patterns by channeling atmospheric molecules; or is the gravity force simply much weaker than molecular collisions, wind patterns, etc. ?

Why should I care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40859759)

If the planet burns, it burns. I'll be dead before it happens. So for me it's all about big SUVs and AC running 24/7.

Detecting anthropogenic movement on the surface (1)

Morgaine (4316) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859845)

I recognize that this is a way out there question to the point of making me laugh, but nevertheless, it's a real physics question in the same general domain as GRACE's measurements. A general idea of the magnitudes involved would certainly be interesting.

By how many orders of magnitude do orbital measurements of local gravity fall short of being able to detect human or human-generated movement on the planet's surface, for example the travel of a train across the country? Related, would the main difficulty likely be to achieve sufficient sensitivity, or to extract the desired signal from the noise floor of atmospheric gravity and other sources? And finally, what is the gravitational contribution of the atmosphere to your measurements?

Re:Detecting anthropogenic movement on the surface (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860369)

Partial answer: GRACE has a horizontal spatial resolution of several hundred kilometers. I think its time resolution ends up being monthly, after a lot of post-processing of data from individual orbits (not realtime). So pretty far from what's required. There's talk of a GRACE follow-on mission with 1 angstrom inter-satellite distance resolution (compared to its current micrometer resolution). Not sure what that would translate into in terms of Earth's gravity field resolution.

Re:Detecting anthropogenic movement on the surface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40860649)

Considering spatial resolution alone, it might not be out of the question to detect the gravitational effect of a large heavily loaded coal or ore train that's moved a few hundred kilometers across an otherwise uninhabited wilderness or desert. Not with GRACE of course, but "in principle".

I suspect that spatial resolution is the least of the difficulties though, as the magnitude of the desired signal is so tiny and the noise probably overwhelming.

Definition of 'climate' (2)

DoctorBonzo (2646833) | about a year and a half ago | (#40859891)

how do you define 'climate' as opposed to 'weather'?

How do you think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40865859)

Is the climate of Florida the same as the climate of Nugent Sound?

No?

How do you tell?

Re:Definition of 'climate' (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year and a half ago | (#40868785)

One definition of climate is the statistical accumulation of weather data over long time periods.

Why is NASA studying things best left to the NOAA? (0, Flamebait)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about a year and a half ago | (#40860659)

Do you feel partly responsible for the failure of America's manned space program by supporting the diversion of funds from NASA's main purpose? Have you calculated how much of NASA's budget goes toward projects that are only vaguely space-related at best? With projects like this consuming more and ore of NASA's resources, do you think America even has a future in space, or will China and Russia remain the only spacefaring countries into the future?

Re:Why is NASA studying things best left to the NO (1)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | about a year and a half ago | (#40861845)

Who said the manned space program is NASA's main purpose? Have you read either the Space Act or their mission statement? Earth observation and science has always been a major part of their purpose.

Furthermore, you have no idea how NASA is funded, do you? It's not like if all of NASA's Earth observation activities were shifted to NOAA, Congress would suddenly give NASA more money for the manned space program.

Finally, it's kind of comical that you seem to consider Earth observation satellites "only vaguely space-related at best".

GPLv3? (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | about a year and a half ago | (#40864963)

If the code and his research are federally funded by the US Government, shouldn't it be released into public-domain instead of GPLv3?

THE END IS NEAR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40866641)

I dare ANY scientist to put his life on the line and say a crisis is "certain" and be willing to be charged with uttering death threats when proved wrong in a court of law.
Safe to say there isn’t any crisis and the theory was 100% wrong.
Look for yourself; not one single IPCC report mentions any “crisis” without a “possible” or “likely”. The end is near............maybe? Help my house is on fire.........maybe after 26 years and millions of studies. Can you say consultant’s wet dream.
I need proof before I condemn my own children to the greenhouse gas ovens of climate change crisis hell. REAL planet lovers are glad any crisis was exaggerated.
Do you WANT Romney in power? The just keep cursing the voter’s kids with CO2 threats of death.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40867025)

Are you willing to be placed in front of a firing squad for delaying the actions to avert a crisis if it turns up?

"I need proof before I condemn my own children to the greenhouse gas ovens of climate change crisis hell."

Here you go:

http://www.ipcc.ch

GRACE life span (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year and a half ago | (#40868869)

There is obviously a lot of valuable information from the GRACE satellites that continues to change over time. How much longer are the GRACE satellites expected to last? Are there any plans for replacements once they die?

CO2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40895645)

CO2 levels parallel average global temperatures, in looking at the geological record, correct? That gives much credence to CO2 as a mechanism for current climate change.

What increased C02 in ancient times? It is also my understanding that volcanic action produced CO2 which raised temps, Correct? Also, at other epochs, certain orbital factors cooked CO2 out of oceans. In this latter case, I would expect CO2 levels to lag temps (and then force greater changes) and in the former (volcanic) case CO2 levels would precede temp rise. Correct?

Here is a related question: If the former case, volcanoes produced CO2 and that raised temps, that same rise should also cood CO2 out of the oceans, which would produce an even greater rise in temps. What could reverse this trend?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...