I know that there's no winning with someone like this, but honestly I have no idea what this dude is trying to say with his last comment. This conversation/comment thread stems from a post about a fossil found in ND. Suggestions for a response?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2023.1295271/full?&utm_source=Email_to_authors_&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=T1_11.5e1_author&utm_campaign=Email_publication&field=&journalName=Frontiers_in_Earth_Science&id=1295271

Earth Science community,

I've encountered a puzzling issue with a dataset from NOAA's Local Climatological Data Airports Database (which can be accessed here: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/local-climatological-data/access). After converting the precipitation data from inches per hour to millimeters per hour, I noticed an abrupt and sustained increase in the mean values, (i.e mean monthly or monthly totals) starting in 2001 across all stations in the dataset.

The transformation applied was a straightforward conversion (1 inch = 25.4 millimeters), but the resultant values post-2001 seem abnormally high when compared to previous years. This is noticeable when plotting the data, which shows a significant jump in the mean precipitation amounts that don't align with historical trends.

The jump persists even without the conversion.

​

This is clearly an artifact and not related to precipitation trends. The monthly values after 2001 are too high for mean monthly precipitation in New England Region.

Have there been any known changes in measurement techniques, data recording, or other methodological shifts at NOAA stations during this period that might explain this anomaly? Is it possible that a reporting change could have affected the data collection?

Any insights or tips on why there could be such a discrepancy or where to look further would be greatly appreciated. I am using the Airports Database since it has other variables in addition to precipitation that are relevant to my analysis.

Thank you for your assistance

​

https://preview.redd.it/dq2k3xyp76pc1.png?width=1357&format=png&auto=webp&s=9e98ff9af5f38e8ae3926a9cbc27af13d077decd

I don't know, maybe this is a dumb question but the curiosity has had me brain storming what makes the ocean look this way in some areas. What are this big ripples in the ocean that make it look this way? Are they gigantic waves? Is it like some kind of hills/ mountains, things of that nature that create these weird-like patterns in this large body of water?

Enlighten me....anyone?

So when the poles do begin to switch will how long will the power grid be unusable like will the poles switch fast or will it take a while

I'm working on replicating a few papers that I find interesting and I'm thinking about putting them behind a Python and R SDK for others to access.

Ideally, you can just pass the name of the paper to the SDK and it can reproduce the analysis and figures on a particular dataset within a Jupyter Notebook or R studio.

Here's a example of what I'm thinking about making: https://github.com/Osyris-Tech/Paper-Disappearing-Cities-On-Us-Coasts/blob/main/README.md

Thoughts/ideas on this?

I'm also taking requests for papers anyone wants replicated.

Ambassadors will work with the NASA SciX team to introduce the NASA Science Explorer digital library to new audiences. Their leadership will drive discussions, organize events, and provide mentorship to fellow researchers, contributing to the advancement of open science.

In recognition of their contributions, ambassadors will receive community outreach training, visibility and recognition for their contributions as a NASA SciX community leader, and financial support to attend in-person trainings at the Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and other conferences where they will present on NASA SciX and their research.

The program is seeking applicants from diverse fields including Astrophysics, Planetary Science, Earth Science, Heliophysics, and Biological & Physical Sciences. Early career researchers (including graduate students) and applicants that identify with underrepresented groups in STEM are highly encouraged to apply.

Learn more & apply at https://s.si.edu/49toRUq.

Application deadline is April 4, 2024. Decisions by mid-April.

Find SciX here: https://SciXplorer.org

https://preview.redd.it/2qhlbmstiqnc1.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7aadf7c96d911536e8ce59cd4fc261bf14cfec0

Hello everyone! I am a first-year master student, and I am currently working on my thesis. The topic is mostly related to sedimentology and coastal engineering, and I like it because I have a golden opportunity to hone new useful skills that, I guess, are also transferable. However, during my studies, I took a course in glaciology, and I became really interested in it. I do not think it would be a reasonable idea to change my master's project to be involved in something glacier-related instead because, firstly, I am interested in my project as well, and, secondly, I have already done a significant part of it, so it would be stupid to step back. But I am now thinking of transferring to glaciology during my PhD studies. I have always wanted to do a PhD, and now I can more or less outline my scientific interests. So, I would like to ask, is it possible to change a field in my PhD given that I already have some knowledge of glaciology? I am also planning to take a 4-5 year break after graduation to find a research-based job where I could learn more about glacier monitoring and modeling. Will it also be helpful? Thank you in advance!

Hey everyone! Am a highschool student who’s about to start uni in September.

I applied for Earth Sciences at Oxford, for which I was accepted and will most likely attend. As much as I love the subject, I don’t really know how the industry is like in terms of high paying jobs. I’d like to not go into petroleum, or any other traditionally lucrative Earth science related jobs. I was wondering if I could possibly study Earth science with perhaps a focus on Geophysics or Planetary science, which have a good base salary and future prospects? Would appreciate any advice!

GEOGRAPHERS - HELP!

Myself and some peers are taking on an undergraduate study of landslide events at Lómagnúpur cliff in Iceland. As far as we can find, there are no available scientific studies or reports on this specific site. We are still in the early stages of planning this report, so would love to hear if anyone has any advice or anything to say about this specific site. We would love any information possible! Thanks

I would like to know if there is a link between WHC and humidity. I have a compost with a maximum retention capacity of 500 mL/L and a moisture content of 77%. I have about 290g of compost in each container and this compost has a density of 588g/L. Is there any way of knowing from this data what percentage of WHC I have? For example 80% WHC, 20% ... ? Thank you in advance for your help.

Hey everyone, I have a Bachelor's in Petroleum Engineering and I've been working as a Reservoir engineer for ExxonMobil in India for the last 5 years. There's a ceiling in terms of challenging technical work and I've reached it, all opportunities beyond this are managerial (I'm not interested in that). I have personal reasons as well to think of emigration.

From the limited experience that I've had from geology courses as part of my undergrad, some basic geology field trips and interacting with Geologists/Geoscientists in my job, I find it extremely fascinating. At this point in my life/career, if I'm going to leave my job and my country, I would want to do that for "Tier 1" programs.

I've had the fortune of travelling to USA, if given a choice I'd prefer Western Europe maybe because of ideological similarities but it's not a strong no for USA.

I'm 26, if I apply this year for Fall courses next year, I'll be almost 28 when I actually start. Is that a concern? Should I be worried about "younger" people getting more opportunities or is it mostly merit-based? Little research shows me that ETH and Harvard should be my aspirational goals.

Thoughts? Sorry it's not a very structured post but I'm just looking for holes in this plan and any...any insights that you might have. Thank you for reading.

Edit: In the last 5 years, I've worked on areas in the Permian Basin..tight sands and shales.

Hey guys, I just wrote a semi-article which is a portion of my final project for my B.sc degree.

in the article, i discuss the extreme events that occurred in the last 20 years, and how we gonna deal with them with some data analysis

let me know what you think [=

Maybe a suggestion about what to add, stuff I missed is this even good work? no clue first time publishing something like this by myself hehe

Link

In this section just North of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania the Susquehanna river seems to "cut through" three layers of mountain range. How did the river not just flow around the mountains or pool up into a lake?

I have a couple of "theories", but I'm sure there's a known answer out there.

Okay I will say this is slightly dramatized as the physics books are mine but I'm using them form my term paper on the physics behind the melting of the Polar ice, but everything else was assigned reading for the semester. This is my first fully non-math based science course I have taken since probably High school bio in 2016.

I will say, I do love what we are learning about! I love Earth Sciences and am considering switching to Geology/Geophysics major as I have found my original idea of Nuclear and Quantum to not be as fun as I had hoped. (Staring at a whiteboard at Cauchy-Shwatz inequalities isn't the thrill I had always imagine it to be)

I have already read "Little Ice Age" and half through "Famine, Flood, and Emperors". Also the only other book we need to read in its entirety is "Human Impact on the Natural Environment". The rest is supplemental but I looked at the syllabus and it totals close to ~2 thousand pages of just reading.

My only issue is, though I have always been an avid reader, yet I now work 2 part time jobs and am a full time student and have to spend my free time doing assigned reading which as a gamer as well, kinda sucks.

So my overall question is, is this kind of reading assignment normal within the ESci field? Should I get used to this?

Also this is a mixed undergrad and grad class so it's typically seen as one of the last you take for ESci majors but after speaking within the department, they figured my strong physics background, it shouldn't be an issue for me to take this. So I know that I may have jumped the gun by taking a 4500 level class but I am so far enjoying it!

Any advice/info is greatly appreciated! Thanks

I’ve seen a post before explaining what would happen if the earth was to immediately stop rotating... but I am now wondering what would happen if it slows down every year, by a very minuscule amount?

I’m a high school student in NY, and I was wondering where I could look for internships that would be applicable to careers in earth sciences. If there is a better place to ask, please let me know. I am particularly interested in hydrology, but thats a little too specific to produce any results near me.

In his 2007 book Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us about Our Future, paleontologist Peter D. Ward states that in a severe greenhouse extinction event the Earth would have purple oceans (Canfield ocean) and a pale green sky. In pages 139-140 he describes it as such:

Yet as sepulchral as the land is, it is the sea itself that is most frightening. Waves slowly lap on the quiet shore, slow-motion waves with the consistency of gelatin. Most of the shoreline is encrusted with rotting organic matter, silk-like swaths of bacterial slick now putrefying under the blazing sun, while in the nearby shallows mounds of similar mats can be seen growing up toward the sea’s surface; they are stromatolites. When animals finally appeared, the stromatolites largely disappeared, eaten out of existence by the new, multiplying, and mobile herbivores. But now these bacterial mats are back, outgrowing the few animal mouths that might still graze on them.

Finally, we look out on the surface of the great sea itself, and as far as the eye can see there is a mirrored flatness, an ocean without whitecaps. Yet that is not the biggest surprise. From shore to the horizon, there is but an unending purple color—a vast, flat, oily purple, not looking at all like water, not looking like anything of our world. No fish break its surface, no birds or any other kind of flying creatures dip down looking for food. The purple color comes from vast concentrations of floating bacteria, for the oceans of Earth have all become covered with a hundred-foot-thick veneer of purple and green bacterial soup.

At last there is motion on the sea, yet it is not life, but anti-life. Not far from the fetid shore, a large bubble of gas belches from the viscous, oil slick–like surface, and then several more of varying sizes bubble up and noisily pop. The gas emanating from the bubbles is not air, or even methane, the gas that bubbles up from the bottom of swamps—it is hydrogen sulfide, produced by green sulfur bacteria growing amid their purple cousins. There is one final surprise. We look upward, to the sky. High, vastly high overhead there are thin clouds, clouds existing at an altitude far in excess of the highest clouds found on our Earth. They exist in a place that changes the very color of the sky itself: We are under a pale green sky, and it has the smell of death and poison. We have gone to the Nevada of 200 million years ago only to arrive under the transparent atmospheric glass of a greenhouse extinction event, and it is poison, heat, and mass extinction that are found in this greenhouse.

In pages 195-197 he also transcribed a conversation he had with geophysicist David Battisti. Here are the relevant parts:

Clouds are the wild cards, controlling opacity of the atmosphere to light, changing albedo, Earth’s reflectivity, but also, if in the right (or for society, in the wrong) place, they act as super greenhouse agents. It is in very high parts of the atmosphere, the altitude where jumbo jets cross the world, where the change in clouds will be most important. Global warming could produce a new kind of cloud layer, clouds where they are not currently present, thin, high clouds, higher than any found today, completely covering the high latitudes and affecting the more tropical latitudes as well, but even that is a misnomer, as most of Earth will have become tropical at that time.

(...)

[In the Arctic] There are no low clouds to be seen, but the moon is almost obscured by hazy high clouds, and the moonlight has an unfamiliar cast to it. There are no stars, and Battisti tells me that the haze above is high and ever present. There would be no starry nights, and, in summer, no perfectly clear days. High haze and high, thin clouds would see to that.

(...)

[In Seattle] Here too the sky is different, but this is daytime, and its color has changed. The distribution of plants and the omnipresence of dust in the summertime due to the drying of the continents in the midlatitudes has changed the very color of the atmosphere; it is strangely murky as yellow particles merge with the blue sky to create a washed green tinge, a vomitous color, in fact.

This is sickening and heart-breaking. A giant rock falling from the sky looks like a mercy in comparison to this agonizing scenario... But is it (still) accurate?

I ask this because I've recently watched Netflix's Life on Our Planet (2023) and BBC's Earth (2023), both of which depict the End-Permian (greenhouse) extinction event, but in none there was any mention or portrayal of a purple Canfield ocean nor a green sky.