Since my last post, I have switched jobs and moved. Now that all of the whirlwind of moving to a new place, searching for a job, going through the entire interview process, negotiating salary and benefits, proceeding through the introduction to the job, and getting settled into both a new apartment and a new job has ceased, I have a moment to think (and not be plagued by writer's block). Interestingly, it was a conversation this weekend which reminded me of a common question over the past six months:
"Wait, you majored in the science of Earth systems? What does that mean?"
Of course, this sort of question would invariably lead me into either (a) an extremely short, I-study-everything-Earth-type response; (b) a simple response of "Well, really, I focused on meteorology and atmospheric science" that cleared things up without really touching on what I really studied; or (c) a very lengthy discussion about what Earth systems mean, the processes involved, and (practically) what I would do with my degree. Most circumstances called for option a or option b since often I did not have the time to dedicate to a full explanation. Alternatively, the person asking was not particularly interested in the full details: They just wanted a better picture about what sort of science I understood. However, on the occasion where option c was available, I started explaining my studies and often was rewarded with an excellent conversation that delved into the science of my degree and even the philosophy or culture behind it.
So, what are Earth Systems, and why do they warrant a specific degree rather than simply taking a geology degree or an atmospheric science degree?
Earth, as the scientific community is becoming aware, is a very, very complex world. We could study things in concrete disciplines, with black-and-white divisions—indeed, we did for a very long period of time. In a way, it was precisely because we still had so much to understand that these divisions worked. Without knowing, for example, that limestone is different than granite and that the two formed under different circumstances, we would never have been able to make the connection between the tiny forms of life that left layers of calcium carbonate at the bottom of the ocean and the rock formations we study today in geology.
Earth as a complex system is often broken up into different sub-systems, called "spheres", when it is studied. Each sphere is a focus of study that is very specific. Some people define more spheres than I do, others less, but that is the nature of a complex system. For my purposes, the definition from my degree works fairly well, as long as I acknowledge that other people may identify other systems. The five I identify are the atmosphere (meteorology/climatology), the lithosphere (geology; note that I am not using the meaning of lithosphere that is a layer of Earth, but rather the generalized term for rock as we used it in my degree program—another term would be the geosphere), the hydrosphere (both fresh- and salt-water), the biosphere (life), and the cryosphere (ice). All of these spheres are highly interconnected, with changes in one sphere affecting other spheres.
So, a simplistic example: a volcanic eruption. A volcanic eruption is within the lithosphere. However, the spew of ash and other particulates into the atmosphere as aerosols affects the atmosphere. As the atmosphere carries the ash elsewhere, the aerosols can cause cloud formation and rain over other areas of the world, which can affect the biosphere and even the hydrosphere.
Now, back to those spheres. Since they all affect each other, the spheres are said to interact with each other. Often, this involves feedback mechanisms, which are active areas of earth systems science research. A feedback mechanism is actually a common element in many different areas of science. More on that in a later post. The important point in this discussion is that these systems are highly interconnected, and small changes can multiply into huge changes in certain circumstances. That fact is why many scientists are referring to the study of Earth as the study of Earth systems. If we are to understand how the Earth works and how what we do affects the world around us, we need to look at Earth as a series of sub-systems with extremely complex interactions. Decisions need to be made with that high level of interconnectedness in mind; weighing all the effects of our actions as a species will require more awareness and more detail than that under which we have been operating as a society. To take on a very controversial topic, the use of fracking techniques, for example, will need to be considered in light not only of our interaction with the geosphere, but also with the hydrosphere in the form of groundwater and aquifiers.
With all of the debate over climate change at the moment, perhaps this may—however obliquely—shed light on why scientists cannot say with any certainty what will happen if we, for example, reduce fossil fuel usage. The system is so complex, the sub-systems so unique, the interactions so unknown, that all we may do is take our limited knowledge and forecast forward from there. A computer calculating the future climate under certain conditions can only give us a forecast that is as good as the knowledge we have to set up the current parameters. Computers, as many of the programmers I know would say, can be remarkably wrong when our initial input is incorrect even by a slight amount.
Hence the importance of a degree that looks at all of the Earth systems, one which trains the alumni to understand that every component of the system is dependent on other components of the system. One which emphasizes the need for learning each sub-system even while focusing on one sub-system and its specific interactions with other sub-systems. It is a natural evolution, in my mind; once we began to understand the specifics of each sub-system on its own, we needed to begin to widen our view to encompass interactions between sub-systems if we ever hope to get a grasp on the system as a whole.
This whole post is only a small piece of the conversation I have started as part of my option c response to the “What is Earth systems science” question. It does not touch on the more involved meanings of Earth systems science (that would be the length of a book or even a series of books!), all of the detail of processes involved (which will likely appear as posts later down the line), or even what I will do with my degree (there are a lot of choices). I did not get into the philosophical discussions—which pull in the history of science, cultural perceptions, and even social norms—that arise when I discuss the implications of my degree intellectually or academically. However, I think this provides a relatively concise manifesto in support of my field along with a short introduction for anyone considering the field itself. Ask questions in the comments, though, if you find something in need of clarification!
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Friday, August 24, 2012
Reading Dr. Carl Sagan's Broca's Brain
I have been reading Broca's Brain by Dr. Carl Sagan over the past month or so, fitting it in every chance I get. Work has been busy up until the past week, and my weekends are filled with other life-related activities. So, I have not gotten too far.
However, I did just finish his set of rebuttals to Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky. I had never heard of the book, to be honest. It apparently made the bestseller list back in the 50s and had generated such a stir by the 70s that the American Association for the Advancement of Science held a meeting over it with both Sagan and Velikovsky in attendance. Sagan not only gave a talk there where he picked through Velikovsky's claims but also clearly felt that the explanations he gave for why Velikovsky was wrong needed to take up a relatively significant part of his next book, Broca's Brain.
I find this whole thing fascinating for two reasons. First, Sagan clearly states in his book that he is appalled by the scientific community's actions in suppressing Velikovsky's ideas. I can do no better than quote him, for he explains it quite well without me:
Propaganda today is rampant, more so I believe than when Sagan was dealing with Velikovsky. We have both scientists and non-scientists publishing books on climate change, popular media taking sides, and popular faces holding forth on ideas which they may or may not have the scientific background to know. This is on both sides, mind you. To acknowledge that the science of climate change has nearly lost its scientific, reason-based footing and slid into the emotional and visceral response for nearly everyone is a bitter pill to swallow for those who are trying to hold to that science and discuss it rationally. Sagan responded to what likely seemed to him a challenge to the science he held dear in the best way he could: with a calm, reasoned rebuttal in terms that everyone - scientist or not - could understand. He utilized the scientific channels he knew as well as the popular cultural channels he was familiar with: books and TV series episodes. Would, then, the best idea for climate scientists today to respond to the "shoddy" research and to the well-thought-out research which does not agree with their own findings be to analyze them on their merits through free inquiry and rational debate through scientific channels, popular media, Facebook, blogging, Twitter, and every single element at their disposal just as the "climate skeptics" are doing? After all, it would make sense that Dr. Sagan would have done the same if such tools were at hand.
The second thing that fascinates me about that section is that I have never heard of the book at all. I took a history of science course in college which really had me hooked. I have been reading history of science type books ever since (in between novels, scientific reading, and other hobbies, of course!), and yet this is the first book that mentions this controversy. It is not surprising that it mentions it, for after all this was a contemporary book to the controversy written by one of the principal actors then. But it makes me wonder how many such controversies - those where a popular idea based in erronious understanding of scientific data was confronted by scientists at the time, trying to change the opinion of a public which had very little understanding of the science anyway - have occurred over the history of science. We may think that the climate debate is a huge, looming, colossal problem. That is certainly because we are living it, and it is a major split in society (though not too much within the scientific community - many scientists can at least agree the climate is changing, though often the debate is over how much of the change is caused by humans). However, it will merely be a footnote or short paragraph in one history of science textbook fifty years from now.
However, I did just finish his set of rebuttals to Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky. I had never heard of the book, to be honest. It apparently made the bestseller list back in the 50s and had generated such a stir by the 70s that the American Association for the Advancement of Science held a meeting over it with both Sagan and Velikovsky in attendance. Sagan not only gave a talk there where he picked through Velikovsky's claims but also clearly felt that the explanations he gave for why Velikovsky was wrong needed to take up a relatively significant part of his next book, Broca's Brain.
I find this whole thing fascinating for two reasons. First, Sagan clearly states in his book that he is appalled by the scientific community's actions in suppressing Velikovsky's ideas. I can do no better than quote him, for he explains it quite well without me:
"In the entire Velikovsky affair, the only aspect worse than the shoddy, ignorant and doctrinaire approach of Velikovsky and many of his supporters was the disgraceful attempt by some who called themselves scientists to suppress his writings. For this, the entire scientific enterprise has suffered. [...] But scientists are supposed to know better, to realize that these ideas will be judged on their merits if we permit free inquiry and vigorous debate. To the extent that scientists have not given Velikovsky the reasoned response his work calls for, we have ourselves been responsible for the propagation of Velikovskian confusion. But scientists cannot deal with all areas of borderline science. The thinking, calculations and preparation of this chapter, for example, took badly needed time away from my own research. But it was certainly not boring, and at the very least I had a brush with many an enjoyable legend."He is very much correct, and it reminds me of earth science's current dealings with so-called "climate deniers," who claim that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. In this day and age, there are some scientists who still try to suppress the writings and ideas of anyone who denies climate change is caused by human beings. However, the difference today is that many of these "climate skeptics" refuse reasoned, public debate with scientists who reach out to them, whereas it seems that Velikovsky was at least willing to participate in such a debate if someone would only give him the space to do so. Many earth scientists point to backing from oil companies or similar organizations when refusing to deal with scientists whose conclusions from research do not back anthropogenic climate change. However, would not the better, more scientific thing to do be to recreate the research or to analyze the findings separately, as scientists are supposed to do when disbelieving someone's findings? After all, that is what the "peer" part of "peer-reviewed research" is supposed to refer to.
Propaganda today is rampant, more so I believe than when Sagan was dealing with Velikovsky. We have both scientists and non-scientists publishing books on climate change, popular media taking sides, and popular faces holding forth on ideas which they may or may not have the scientific background to know. This is on both sides, mind you. To acknowledge that the science of climate change has nearly lost its scientific, reason-based footing and slid into the emotional and visceral response for nearly everyone is a bitter pill to swallow for those who are trying to hold to that science and discuss it rationally. Sagan responded to what likely seemed to him a challenge to the science he held dear in the best way he could: with a calm, reasoned rebuttal in terms that everyone - scientist or not - could understand. He utilized the scientific channels he knew as well as the popular cultural channels he was familiar with: books and TV series episodes. Would, then, the best idea for climate scientists today to respond to the "shoddy" research and to the well-thought-out research which does not agree with their own findings be to analyze them on their merits through free inquiry and rational debate through scientific channels, popular media, Facebook, blogging, Twitter, and every single element at their disposal just as the "climate skeptics" are doing? After all, it would make sense that Dr. Sagan would have done the same if such tools were at hand.
The second thing that fascinates me about that section is that I have never heard of the book at all. I took a history of science course in college which really had me hooked. I have been reading history of science type books ever since (in between novels, scientific reading, and other hobbies, of course!), and yet this is the first book that mentions this controversy. It is not surprising that it mentions it, for after all this was a contemporary book to the controversy written by one of the principal actors then. But it makes me wonder how many such controversies - those where a popular idea based in erronious understanding of scientific data was confronted by scientists at the time, trying to change the opinion of a public which had very little understanding of the science anyway - have occurred over the history of science. We may think that the climate debate is a huge, looming, colossal problem. That is certainly because we are living it, and it is a major split in society (though not too much within the scientific community - many scientists can at least agree the climate is changing, though often the debate is over how much of the change is caused by humans). However, it will merely be a footnote or short paragraph in one history of science textbook fifty years from now.
Monday, July 16, 2012
The human mind; volcanoes and aerosols
It amazes me how complex the mind is. I spent the better part of today and some of yesterday reading through GSA Today and Geology, and I found myself re-reading the same paragraph and paper over and over. Now, it was not because I found it absolutely fascinating (though it was interesting). No, it was because I forgot what on earth the terms within it meant!
A bit of background. I am only two years out of my earth sciences program. And, considering how much my mentors and teachers made sure I kept information in my head, I am sure they would be disappointed that it took me hours to remember definitions.
However, think about it. Our brains process a huge amount of information every moment. Much of that processing actually infers what things are, generating meaning from strings of variables and data. As Randall at the webcomic xkcd so excellently pointed out in this comic on vision (by the way, the geology comic today was hilarious!), our brains keep track of what color everything should be. Even just language. Have you ever considered it? We take strokes made by a writing instrument, assign sound to it, and then string series of strokes together to make something that actually means something to our brains. Not only that, it means the same thing to others' brains (perhaps not exactly, as it brings up memories, which are never the same).
So, I guess it is not too surprising that I might forget terms that I have not heard in two years. However, it does make me realize I need to read scientific papers more often.
In other news, I read the recent Weatherwise over the past week, and one of the mini articles at the front of the magazine caught my attention. It is titled "Major Volcanic Eruptions Might Squelch Big Atlantic Storms." To me, it is great to see this sort of thing studied because it shows that people are looking at the interactions between earth systems. The paper they were summarizing from the Journal of Geophysical Research explores how aerosols from two tropical volcanoes affects tropical systems in the Atlantic. The researcher, Amato Evan from the University of Virginia, showed a decrease in frequency. Great topic to look into!
Aerosols, by the way, are extremely tiny particles suspended in the air. They can range from sea salt (ejected into the air as waves crash - when the water shows the white peaks, then it could be pushing sea salt into the air) to sulfates from volcanic eruptions, as two examples. These aerosols could become cloud condensation nuclei. Water vapor often needs a particle to adhere to as it condenses into clouds, and those particles are called cloud condensation nuclei. A good way to learn about it would be to cut open a hailstone (or look one up on the web). At the center of the hailstone, there is always something which started the whole process. So, in that way, it is like a pearl in the ocean, where a bit of something aggravates an oyster, which responds by encasing it in calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate (CaCO3), by the way, is also what living organisms make shells out of, and is found in many rocks throughout the world.
Enjoy the start of the workweek (at least, here in the USA)!
A bit of background. I am only two years out of my earth sciences program. And, considering how much my mentors and teachers made sure I kept information in my head, I am sure they would be disappointed that it took me hours to remember definitions.
However, think about it. Our brains process a huge amount of information every moment. Much of that processing actually infers what things are, generating meaning from strings of variables and data. As Randall at the webcomic xkcd so excellently pointed out in this comic on vision (by the way, the geology comic today was hilarious!), our brains keep track of what color everything should be. Even just language. Have you ever considered it? We take strokes made by a writing instrument, assign sound to it, and then string series of strokes together to make something that actually means something to our brains. Not only that, it means the same thing to others' brains (perhaps not exactly, as it brings up memories, which are never the same).
So, I guess it is not too surprising that I might forget terms that I have not heard in two years. However, it does make me realize I need to read scientific papers more often.
In other news, I read the recent Weatherwise over the past week, and one of the mini articles at the front of the magazine caught my attention. It is titled "Major Volcanic Eruptions Might Squelch Big Atlantic Storms." To me, it is great to see this sort of thing studied because it shows that people are looking at the interactions between earth systems. The paper they were summarizing from the Journal of Geophysical Research explores how aerosols from two tropical volcanoes affects tropical systems in the Atlantic. The researcher, Amato Evan from the University of Virginia, showed a decrease in frequency. Great topic to look into!
Aerosols, by the way, are extremely tiny particles suspended in the air. They can range from sea salt (ejected into the air as waves crash - when the water shows the white peaks, then it could be pushing sea salt into the air) to sulfates from volcanic eruptions, as two examples. These aerosols could become cloud condensation nuclei. Water vapor often needs a particle to adhere to as it condenses into clouds, and those particles are called cloud condensation nuclei. A good way to learn about it would be to cut open a hailstone (or look one up on the web). At the center of the hailstone, there is always something which started the whole process. So, in that way, it is like a pearl in the ocean, where a bit of something aggravates an oyster, which responds by encasing it in calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate (CaCO3), by the way, is also what living organisms make shells out of, and is found in many rocks throughout the world.
Enjoy the start of the workweek (at least, here in the USA)!
Saturday, July 14, 2012
By the way....
I forgot to mention that Active Region (AR) 1520 gave off an X1.4 flare on Thursday! This is following an X1.1 from AR 1515 on July 6th (USA). The X1.4 flare also triggered a CME. Definitely getting back into the solar maximum!
Ramblings on Women in Science
I recently gave a talk at Maker Faire KC discussing inspiring girls and women in the STEM fields (STEM stands for science, technology, engineering, and math, by the way). In looking up a couple things on the web, I realized that there are very few female science communicators out there who enjoy the same worldwide exposure as, say, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Brian Cox.
Ignoring the similar observation about female scientists' recognition, I cannot help to ask why are popularized science communicators overall male? It is not like men are better at explanations than women, or that no female scientist is interested in going on TV to explain scientific discoveries and theories. It seems to me to be a remnant of a past version of society where men were viewed as the only ones who could effectively follow the intellectual pathway of science. It is almost like broadcast executives are thinking, "A man is the only one who people will believe when it comes to explaining the science we want to explore."
But is that really true? Will people only believe a man when it comes to science? In some cases, sadly, yes. Some people (often older men in my experience) will not believe that a woman is explaining science to them correctly. However, those people are becoming few and far between. And there are certainly lots of older men I have encountered who will listen to a female scientist without a problem! So why are we still functioning as if our society still holds true to the belief that women cannot do science when it comes to science communication?
I honestly do not know. There are a lot of women trying to reverse this trend by communicating science as best we can. After all, as more and more women communicate the tenets and new discoveries of science, technology, engineering, and math, the odds of a female becoming a science communicator with worldwide popularity goes up.
Just a little ramble on women communicating science for you as I continue to read through the latest issues of earth science journals and general science news. A post on science is coming soon!
(And do not even get me started on the lack of communication skills within the scientific community to explain their findings effectively to a general audience without playing fast and loose with science and probability!)
Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Ignoring the similar observation about female scientists' recognition, I cannot help to ask why are popularized science communicators overall male? It is not like men are better at explanations than women, or that no female scientist is interested in going on TV to explain scientific discoveries and theories. It seems to me to be a remnant of a past version of society where men were viewed as the only ones who could effectively follow the intellectual pathway of science. It is almost like broadcast executives are thinking, "A man is the only one who people will believe when it comes to explaining the science we want to explore."
But is that really true? Will people only believe a man when it comes to science? In some cases, sadly, yes. Some people (often older men in my experience) will not believe that a woman is explaining science to them correctly. However, those people are becoming few and far between. And there are certainly lots of older men I have encountered who will listen to a female scientist without a problem! So why are we still functioning as if our society still holds true to the belief that women cannot do science when it comes to science communication?
I honestly do not know. There are a lot of women trying to reverse this trend by communicating science as best we can. After all, as more and more women communicate the tenets and new discoveries of science, technology, engineering, and math, the odds of a female becoming a science communicator with worldwide popularity goes up.
Just a little ramble on women communicating science for you as I continue to read through the latest issues of earth science journals and general science news. A post on science is coming soon!
(And do not even get me started on the lack of communication skills within the scientific community to explain their findings effectively to a general audience without playing fast and loose with science and probability!)
Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Friday, July 6, 2012
And so we begin...
Beginning a blog is a bit difficult, as finding something to say other than "I am starting a blog, and here it is" is hard. So, let us simply get down to the good stuff: earth science!
Some of the coolest news I have seen lately came from heliophysics and space weather. The sun is heading into the most active part of its cycle next year, and the solar atmosphere is raging. A specifically active sunspot, Region 1515, just gave off a M-class flare yesterday on July 5th. Specifically, a M6.1. There was a M5.3 on the 4th, and a M5.6 on the 2nd.
Let me explain a bit about the classifications of flares. Flares are sudden, intense bright bursts from the sun, releasing a lot of energy, and are sometimes associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs, which can also occur just on their lonesome). They can do quite a bit to disrupt our lives by the energy's interaction with our satellites and our geomagnetic field. There are five main classes for categorization: A, B, C, M, and X. A-, B-, and C-classes, the lowest, does not generally affect our day-to-day life. M-class can be disruptive. X-class are destructive. These classes are further broken down into a logarithmic scale. So, you start at A1 and go out to C9.9, then jump to M1 through M9.9. Once, you get to X-class, though, there is nothing higher than that. So you can go from X1 to X9.9 and then continue out beyond X10. The highest number we have reached on our scale from measurements was a X45 (best guess from indirect methods, as it swamped the instruments recording it by the time it started to go above X28) back on November 4th, 2003. However, the strongest one we have witnessed in historical records was the Carrington Event, named after the gentleman scientist who observed and recorded it. Based on isotopes in ice cores and Carrington's records, we are relatively sure that flare was stronger than the 2003 flare and was an event that statistically occurs once every 500 years.
Flares add significant pulses to the solar wind, the stream of particles getting ejected out into space from the sun's atmosphere. The solar wind courses through the solar system, reaching out to the edge of the sun's influence. We call the entire area where the solar wind blows the heliosheath. The sun protects our solar system from cosmic rays through its influence, so we should be very happy to be within that heliosheath. The edge of the heliosheath is called the heliopause. That is out where Voyagers 1 and 2 are, looking for the heliopause beyond the termination shock (where the solar wind slows). Therefore, it affects the weather near us in space. So, a significant flare will not only cause aurorae well below or above polar regions, it also can disrupt satellite communications, GPS, and space-faring humans. Hence, it is something well worth studying.
A heat wave has been in force for the past week or more here in the United States and has been making headlines everywhere. The weather here in Kansas City is, like much of the United States, extremely hot and uncomfortable. Luckily, it should break at the beginning of this next week. The full analysis of the weather will have to wait, as I think the heat is causing me to think longingly of the ice cream sitting in our freezer!
In other news, I got in the latest GSA (Geological Society of America) Bulletin and Geology yesterday. Still reading through them; hopefully, I will have some thoughts on the contents by the end of the weekend. I have not gotten out the latest BAMS (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) yet, nor the latest Physics Today. Maybe once I get that ice cream...
Keep cool (or warm, if you are in the Southern Hemisphere winter)!
Some of the coolest news I have seen lately came from heliophysics and space weather. The sun is heading into the most active part of its cycle next year, and the solar atmosphere is raging. A specifically active sunspot, Region 1515, just gave off a M-class flare yesterday on July 5th. Specifically, a M6.1. There was a M5.3 on the 4th, and a M5.6 on the 2nd.
Let me explain a bit about the classifications of flares. Flares are sudden, intense bright bursts from the sun, releasing a lot of energy, and are sometimes associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs, which can also occur just on their lonesome). They can do quite a bit to disrupt our lives by the energy's interaction with our satellites and our geomagnetic field. There are five main classes for categorization: A, B, C, M, and X. A-, B-, and C-classes, the lowest, does not generally affect our day-to-day life. M-class can be disruptive. X-class are destructive. These classes are further broken down into a logarithmic scale. So, you start at A1 and go out to C9.9, then jump to M1 through M9.9. Once, you get to X-class, though, there is nothing higher than that. So you can go from X1 to X9.9 and then continue out beyond X10. The highest number we have reached on our scale from measurements was a X45 (best guess from indirect methods, as it swamped the instruments recording it by the time it started to go above X28) back on November 4th, 2003. However, the strongest one we have witnessed in historical records was the Carrington Event, named after the gentleman scientist who observed and recorded it. Based on isotopes in ice cores and Carrington's records, we are relatively sure that flare was stronger than the 2003 flare and was an event that statistically occurs once every 500 years.
Flares add significant pulses to the solar wind, the stream of particles getting ejected out into space from the sun's atmosphere. The solar wind courses through the solar system, reaching out to the edge of the sun's influence. We call the entire area where the solar wind blows the heliosheath. The sun protects our solar system from cosmic rays through its influence, so we should be very happy to be within that heliosheath. The edge of the heliosheath is called the heliopause. That is out where Voyagers 1 and 2 are, looking for the heliopause beyond the termination shock (where the solar wind slows). Therefore, it affects the weather near us in space. So, a significant flare will not only cause aurorae well below or above polar regions, it also can disrupt satellite communications, GPS, and space-faring humans. Hence, it is something well worth studying.
A heat wave has been in force for the past week or more here in the United States and has been making headlines everywhere. The weather here in Kansas City is, like much of the United States, extremely hot and uncomfortable. Luckily, it should break at the beginning of this next week. The full analysis of the weather will have to wait, as I think the heat is causing me to think longingly of the ice cream sitting in our freezer!
In other news, I got in the latest GSA (Geological Society of America) Bulletin and Geology yesterday. Still reading through them; hopefully, I will have some thoughts on the contents by the end of the weekend. I have not gotten out the latest BAMS (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) yet, nor the latest Physics Today. Maybe once I get that ice cream...
Keep cool (or warm, if you are in the Southern Hemisphere winter)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)