Thermochronic Book Club #1 - T.Rex and the Crater of Doom by Walter Alvarez

A while ago I blogged about how I would be challenging myself to read and blog about 5 popular science books over the course of the next year. I solicited suggestions, set a start date, and then, dropped the ball. There are two primary reasons that my geology blogging has been slack lately; first, I finally submitted a manuscript I've been working on, and second, it's NCAA March Madness time, the greatest American sporting event (by a long shot), and so have been a little distracted.

The paper took longer than I had hoped to submit, perhaps because to be honest I am not all that thrilled with it. The science is good, the data important, and the results make sense and need to be published, but for a number of reasons the results are not sexy nor earth-shattering. I know not all science is supposed to be ground-breaking, but still. At least it is out the door, we'll see what the reviewers say.

As far as the NCAA goes, those of you who don't follow or care about the Men's Basketball Championship tournament, during the first four days of the tournament, 48 single elimination games were played all over the country, resulting in some stunning upsets and nail biting finishes. I now live on the east coast of America, which means the games start late here, and finish late, so if I want to watch any I have to stay up past my bed time; this has cut into my other recreational activities (read: blogging).

But, I did finish my first book of the challenge, T. Rex and the Crater of Doom by Walter Alvarez.
I have been meaning to read this book since the 2002 Geological Society of America national meeting in Seattle where I saw Walter Alvarez receive the Penrose Medal. I had actually gone to the awards ceremony because at the same time, John McPhee was also receiving a medal (The GSA Public Service Award) and wanted to hear his acceptance speech. For me, though, Alvarez's acceptance speech really stole the show. I've been looking all over the internet for a transcript with no luck, but regardless, I remember it as being one of the more poetic and heartfelt speeches I had ever heard (especially at GSA). In his talk he briefly discussed the work he is most famous for (and the topic of this book), but more importantly spent time talking about the aesthetics of field work, and the importance of the friendships he had built over the years working on this project. I remember him ending with an image of the end of a field day, sipping wine in some perfect valley in Italy surrounded by friends and the excitement of the story they were all unraveling. Anyways, that was 5 years ago, and the fact that I am only now getting around to reading the book is a little silly, but here we go.

T. Rex and the Crater of Doom chronicles the events that lead to the discovery of evidence for a major extraterrestrial impact at the Cretaceous - Tertiary (or K-T) boundary, the time when all of the dinosaurs (and many other animals) suddenly went extinct, roughly 65 Million years ago. Alvarez began working on a series of limestones in the Appenine Mountains of Italy in an attempt to use paleomagnetics to chart microplate rotations in the Mediterranian. The section he was analyzing stretched over the K-T boundary, preserving an exceptional marine record of that time period. They never found evidence for microplate rotation, but they had stumbled upon something much more significant. What they eventually found was a huge spike in the amount if Iridium present in the clay layer at the K-T boundary. They published this finding in Science in 1990 (Alvarez et al., 1990, Iridium Profile for 10 Million Years of the Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary at Gubbio [Italy]; Science v. 250, n. 4988, pp. 1700-1702). The Iridium concentrations were such a find because Iridium is not very common in the crust of the earth, most of the Iridium the planet contains is locked up in the core. Meteorites have similar bulk compositions to the earth, but can be completely destroyed upon impact, vaporizing themselves and leaving a fine layer of meteor dust spread around the world. Meteor dust is enriched in Ir compared to the highly differentiated earth crustal rocks, so it shows up as distinct spikes in abundance.

From Alvarez et al., 1990

This is a figure from the Alvarez paper showing the Ir concentration (in parts per trillion) versus stratigraphic position in the limestone. Background Ir levels are barely above the minimum sensitivity of the instrument, but at the K-T boundary there is an enormous peak. This "Iridium Anomaly" has since been found all over the world at the K-T boundary.

I don't want to give away the whole story, because the book is certainly worth reading. Alvarez does an excellent job capturing the process of science and presenting it for the readers in a way that is very interesting to read. It shows that what we find is rarely what we set out to prove, and that some of the most interesting and exciting scientific discoveries are born from the ashes of failed studies.

I've heard versions of this story many times during my geologic career, but the book still kept me interested. Alvarez adds enough background that the story is easy to follow (even for those with no real background in geology), without sounding too basic or redundant. These are qualities I think public science books need to have, especially when done in a genuinely readable style.

There are aspects of this book I found particulary interesting, but they didn't really center around the impact story. The first was his discussion of the tension in the geologic community over uniformitarianism. This idea is often summed up using a quote from Charles Lyell, "The present is the key to the past." Basically, if we want to know how something happened in the past, then we should observe today's processes. There is no need to involve "catastrophic" phenomena to understand geologic features, and that rare and catastrophic events (like impacts) have little role in the history of the earth. I had of course learned about this idea (which is still largely true, but I'll get to that in a minute), but the tension and disagreement over the importance of catastrophic events was something I never really had a feel for. This debate was happening during my lifetime, really during the beginning of my geologic education. The problem, as I see it, was that embedded in the concept of uniformitarianism is a time scale. Things that seem rare and catastrophic on the human time scale (large volcanic eruptions like Yellowstone, extra-terrestrial impacts, some of the floods that occurred when the dams of glacial lakes broke, etc...) are, from perspective of geologic time, fairly common. So it's not really that we have to call upon events that no longer happen, only that we have to expand the idea of everyday geologic phenomena.

The other aspect of the book I really enjoyed was his discussion of how geology, as a science, changed in nature from when he was doing his Ph.D.

Geologic mapping was satisfying and useful, but in retrospect most of it seems to me to have been intellectually pretty routine. While early twentieth century physicists were reading "the thoughts of God," in Einstein's phrase - exploring the majestic curvature of spacetime on the scale of the universe and disovering the weird quantum behavior of the infinitesimarlly small-geologists labored to reconstruct the paths of ancient rivers and the pattern of lands and seas at various times in the past.....Geology simply asked its apprentices to learn the techniques of geologic mapping and to memorize a lot of complicated terminology and then it sent them out to add to the growing knowledge of the rock record of the Earth.
And yet, with hindsight, we can see that the mapping was an investment which is now paying great dividends. Physics could make great discoveries quickly by reducing complicated problems to simpler components because physics investigates the fundamental laws of Nature, which do not change and do not become more complex through time. Geology seeks to understand the earth, which has evolved over 4,600 million years, accumulating more and more historical complexity in its rock record. That century and a half of mapping the Earth produced the detailed knowledge of the rock record which is now allowing geology to emerge as a mature science, skilled at interpreting historical complexity, and therefore perhaps the discipline best prepared to lead science into the holistic world of the twenty-first century. [emphasis added]

First, I'd like to point out that "that century and a half of mapping" is not really over. There are many regions of the world (even the continental US) that still need to be mapped (or remapped). It is a necessary step in understanding the geology of a region, and it introduces and refines most of the skills geologists need (primarly, it hones observational skills). Second, all geologists need to be able to create and read geologic maps, and any attempt to remove this from a curriculum is detrimental to the science. But, geology has changed. This is obvious to anyone who has checked out older theses from their university library; expectations are now very different. This is no surprise, I am sure all disciplines are similar, but I like to keep it in mind. I am tuned to lectures from people older than me about how easy younger generations have it, but that just isn't true. Expectations, abilities, and realities are all different. I suppose as I transition into a grumpy old man I should also keep it in mind.

The final aspect of the book I'd like to touch on is how well it describes what I think all geologists (perhaps all scientists) dream of happening to their research. You stumble upon something that ends up being enormous, and changes the face of science forever. There is no doubt that Walter Alvarez is an exceptional scientist who worked very hard for many years to accomplish what he did, but he also freely admits the role of chance in his discoveries. Things worked out well for him, and I think it instills hope that crazy and unforseen exciting discoveries are out there waiting to be made. Not in the project I finally submitted for publication, but I am sure they must be somewhere.

T. Rex and the Crater of Doom is worth the read, even if you already know the punchline. It is also rather short (which, Mrs. Apparent-dip-but-with-a-different-last-name can tell you is a key factor in my book-choosing process: I turned in 4 papers in 4 different classes on The Red Badge of Courage during my high school and college life).

I am not sure which book I'll be taking on next, but this is off to a good start. Any other thoughts on this book, or if anyone wants to comment on a recent paper by Gerta Keller et al. Chicxulub impact predates K–T boundary: New evidence from Brazos, Texas that appeared in Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Earth and Sanitary Appliance Letters?) Volume 255, Issues 3-4, 30 March 2007, Pages 339-356, I'd appreciate it.

Global Climate Energy Project, Big Oil, and Big Benefactors

I read this article today about a recent decision by a major benefactor of Stanford University to withdraw a $2.5 million dollar gift to the university because Stanford recently accepted a $100 million dollar gift from ExxonMobil. The ExxonMobil gift was part of a combined $250 million dollar grant from a variety of of donors to create a new research institute at Stanford called the Global Climate and Energy Project. This institute will bring together scientists from a wide variety of disciplines to look for ways to "meet future energy needs without worsening global warming." Included in the article is this quote.

“Exxon Mobil is trying to greenwash itself, and it’s using Stanford as its brush,” Yusef Robb, who has worked with Bing on climate issues, told The Mercury News. “We think that people who give to Stanford do so because they want to help the future leaders of this nation, not because they want to advance the agenda of ExxonMobil.”

I am by no means a fan of ExxonMobil in the political or environmental sense, I am sure they, like most any other company in the world, make decisions based on short term profits and not on some sun-shiney moralistic ideal. But I think Bing's logic is twisted for a few big reasons.

1. I don't see the problem with a company trying to "greenwash" it's image. I don't believe companies can be moral or immoral, they can just do good things or bad things. ExxonMobil has plenty of bad company points, as I have already blogged about (and then some for sure), but why should that stop them from doing something good? Giving money to research aimed at developing energy alternatives seems like a good thing (as long as there are no strings attached, see point #3.)
   
2. I am sure the Bing family has in the past had plenty of money invested with oil companies (perhaps without them even knowing about it.) Most banks and mutual funds and things of that sort do. So why would it be OK to have investments that use companies like ExxonMobil to make money, but not want anyone else to benefit. Bing could of course only have "socially responsible" investments. I don't know all that much about him, other than what I can find on imdb.com and related entertainment sites, so if Mr. Bing does only have socially responsible investments, flies commercial airlines (so as not to waste energy with private planes), takes public transportation as often as possible and drives a hybrid when he can't, lives in a modest home complete with native fauna in the garden and of course, no swimming pool (I am guessing he lives in Southern California since he is a Hollywood dude), a nice compost pile where he can put the scraps from his locally grown vegetarian cooking, then I will perhaps agree with his decision.
3. This institute could be very important. It makes sense that energy companies want to invest in the future of energy, but isn't this something we all have a vested interest in. It states explicitly that Stanford University will own any and all patents produced by the institute, so they won't directly make money from this.
4. The gift he is rescinding was a general gift to the university; the gift he is complaining about is building a new institute. So, the general student population will be hurt, but those involved in the institute won't.
5. I think oil companies are easy targets to complain about. Truth is, like almost all large companies, they do some pretty bad stuff. I have no problem passing laws that regulate oil companies or the use and/or acquisition of energy, but I also think that the first place we need to look is at our energy use. If there wasn't such an absurd demand for oil, then oil companies would just be another podunk company, it is our use that gives them the power they have. Another example, I think, is Ted Turner. I again agree with him on most things, but he flies around the world in a private jet, perhaps the most energy inefficient mode of transportation known to man (well, except for perhaps spotted owl powered space shuttles or other monstrosities). Fly first class if you must, mingle with the dregs of society and enjoy the average in-flight movie; a small price to pay for your planet. Hell, they could even afford those super sweet Bose noise cancelling headphones, those would make even coach seats bearable. This kind of reminds me of people who drive SUV's to Whole Foods so they can buy organic arugula.
   
6. Stanford, I am sure, has had investments in ExxonMobil for a long time, as does anyone, or anything, with a diversified investment portfolio (see point #1). Why is it an issue now? Why doesn't Bing work with Stanford to create a socially responsible investment portfolio, or encourage Stanford to use it's shareholder clout to help redirect wayward corporations?
7. Let's pretend that every major oil company in the world except ExxonMobil had contributed to the institute, my bet is that people would then complain about how ExxonMobil isn't doing enough to help find energy alternatives.
8. Does his action help solve a problem, or is it simply a publicity stunt? If the end goal is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce the production of greenhouse gases, does this help, hinder, or do nothing? Would he rather take away $100 million dollars from the institute, would that solve the problem?
   

I have no problem with Mr. Bing's positions or politics, I just think this is an odd reaction. Perhaps he could direct the gift into something that directly counteracts what he dislikes about ExxonMobil. Maybe create his own institute, one that develops oil company free investment plans. This isn't the first time a major benefactor has broken a promise of support to Stanford, and I don't think in either case the decision made much sense.

I am, however, excited to see that Steve Bing is producing a film version of Beowulf, which ranks as my #1 all time solo--road- trip book-on-tape. It got me to and from Seattle many times.

Peak Oil and Biophysical Economics

I recently had the chance to see Charlie Hall (from SUNY-ESF) give a lecture on Peak Oil. I think like many geologists I've either seen and/or read quite a bit about the concept of peak oil recently, so the material itself wasn't entirely new, but Dr. Hall also introduced an idea I was not familiar with, but have had in my head since the talk. I'll get to that in a second, first, for the uninitiated:

The figures I am using are all from the wikipedia Peak Oil page, just a disclaimer

Peak Oil is an idea first developed by one of this century's great geologists, M. King Hubbert. He introduced his theory in the late 1950's as a way of predicting future oil supplies. The idea is fairly simple, and is based on the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, and there is consequently a finite supply of oil in the world. Oil production will follow a bell shaped curve. As the demand for oil increases, oil companies increase their supply as much as they can; pumping fields at full capacity and discovering new reserves. Demand continues to increase, but fields begin to dry up, and new fields just don't exist, so production declines. Whatever the exact shape of the curve, the logic is pretty plain, the integrated area under the curve is equal to the total amount of recoverable petroleum reserves in the world. This is Peak Oil, the idea that there will (or has been) a peak in oil production, and that at some point production will decrease, about as rapidly as it initially increased. This model works very well for individual oil fields, or even national reserves

The red curve shows US oil production versus time, with a peak in 1970, and a slight secondary bump thanks to the north slope of Alaska. World oil is in blue.
This is the theoretical production curve (red) and actual data for Norwegian production. I don't want to argue the specifics of the model; whether or not the curves are symmetric, how much technology can help (answer jack squat), when the peak is, etc.. There are some truths that you just can't get around, namely that the amount of oil in the world is finite. and that at some point we will be using more than we can extract, and production rates will decline.

Arguments against peak oil seem to follow the lines of "the market solves everything." As supply decreases, price increases, and demand decreases, thank god for the market, it will save us all. Oil will get expensive, and some budding entrepreneur will devise some amazing technology that will save the world! At some level I suppose that is true; if there are humans around in 500 years, they will undoubtedly not be using oil as their primary energy source (they will of course be using flux capacitors). Whether or not it happens isn't the problem, but instead what happens during the transition. Dismissing peak oil with some dreamy ode to market forces ignores how nasty things can get in the face of scarce resources. Technology will find alternatives, but when? Do we decide now to solve the problem before it gets too hairy, or do we wait until something resembling this happens? Hell, remember when stores would run out of Beanie Babies and all hell would break lose? I think oil might be worse.

This brings me to biophysical economics. The term, as used by Charlie Hall, refers to an economic theory that does not violate the laws of nature, especially trivial little ideas like thermodynamics. This is of course a major problem with simple supply and demand, it assumes that supply is only limited by something like factory output. For example, no matter how much the price of oil increases, the supply cannot, and any reasonable replacement would take much longer to develop than the oil would last. Economic theory rooted in physical realities, I like it.

I am less an economist than I am a petroleum geologist (not much), so this post is really not in my wheelhouse. This has sparked my interest though. Are there any more econ-minded folks out there who know about biophysical economics, or any economic theory that explicity takes into account the laws of nature? Any notable economists who consider the natural world, or economics programs that require some line of study like this?

Lake Tahoe and the evil 1098-T

Today I've been thinking quite a bit about Lake Tahoe. Why? Well, because I did my taxes. Let me explain. This post will begin largely as a rant about 1098-T forms, and the absurdity they represent. 1098-T forms are what you get when an educational institution gives you fellowship or scholarship money. For most of my graduate career, somewhere around half of the money I made came in the form of one of these things. In the last few years, it was almost all of the cashola. Because the money was given in order to facilitate research, it was untaxable. Money I made as an hourly employee TA-ing, or RA-ing, or whatever-ing, was taxed, BWRU paid payroll taxes on that salary, taxes were deducted from my paycheck, and I'd receive a W-2 at the end of the year. Easy. It was even decided in a few tax court cases that if you were a student pursuing a degree, then money given in the form of fellowships and scholarships was intended to further your education, and therefore not taxable income. This all changed a few years ago (from what I can gather, although the exact timing is difficult for my non-accountant brain to figure out, perhaps if the DZA is reading he can contribute his mad skillz). Now it doesn't matter at all what the money was given for, it all depends now on how it is spent, and the list of what is a "qualified education expense", and therefore non-taxable, is exceedingly short. All of the money you are given, except that spent on tuition and items required for attendance counts as taxable income. Items required for attendance includes things like books required for a class and certain fees, but absolutely nothing else. If you use your fellowship to buy a laptop, or do field research, or attend a meeting, maybe buy lab supplies, thesis paper, safety glasses, sample bags, field books, a hand lens and brunton compass... none of that counts as "qualified educational expenses." Room and board? no way. So, if you received 27,000 in fellowship money, and out of that was paid 9,000 in tuition and you bought no required textbooks, you must, at the end of the year, pay taxes on the remaining 18,000. That's right, you owe something over a grand. I'll pause here if you need to change your newly soiled pants.

I am no anarchist, and truth is I have no problem paying taxes, but the logic of this defies me. The university pays me in a way that they do not have to pay payroll taxes; no social security, no medicare, no disability, nothing. But then I have to act like an employee and pay taxes on the money, even though I get none of the benefits of being an employee (my social security pay-ins, for example, stagnate when I am on fellowship). It also astounds me that if I use the money for research related expenses, I still have to pay taxes on it, because none of them count as "qualified tuition expenses." Even though I was getting paid this way I was still officially a TA and/or RA, so how does BWRU get away with it? And how hard would it be for them to send a form letter to every student on fellowship telling them that they should pay estimated taxes or else expect to owe a few grand come April? Of course if I was loaded and owned a house then I could deduct the expenses as business related, but seriously, own a house? Pay mortgage? Qualify for a loan? What burns me up even more is that the focus of what is a qualified tuition expense really has nothing to do with the bulk of most graduate careers. Even in class-intense fields, you are usually done taking classes, at least for credit, by the third year. So, after that, during all of your research, you can deduct jack squat.

So this got me thinking about Lake Tahoe, South Lake Tahoe specifically, poor man's Vegas, a place a geologist like me could make my fortune! But I hate Vegas, and casinos, so let me forget the ginormous check I have to write the government to help fund this, and focus on the nice part of Tahoe. The geology, the scenery, the skiing, the hiking, the fact that if I hid in the forest the IRS could never find me...

Lake Tahoe sits astride the California-Nevada border at the crest of the Sierra Nevada. It is a very large and deep lake (roughly 500m maximum depth, that's the 12th deepest freshwater lake in the world), and is considered by many to be the westernmost basin and range graben. The lake is deep because there are active normal faults cutting through the middle and sides of the lake, separating the Carson Range to the east (Basin and Range) from the Sierra Nevada. These faults downdrop the block that makes up the bottom of the lake, thus creating an enormous bowl that holds water, and is therefore a lake.

figure from Garner et al (2000), GSA Bulletin v. 112, n. 5, p. 736-746

The following pictures are from the summer of 2005, and were taken at the southern end of the lake in Emerald Bay. If any of you are realizing for the first time that you somehow have to come up with a few grand because of how you were paid, well, at least these pictures are free. Actually, considering I am on the hook for about a month's wages, if anyone wants to purchase the original photos for some absurd price....

Therapy for staring at ugly apatites all day

I spent time today helping a student pick out apatites for (U-Th)/He analysis. For those of you unfamiliar with this process, it is easily the biggest time sink in the whole method. After you chose a study area, collect samples, and separate out apatites, the really tedious part begins. For a variety of reasons, you have to be very selective when it comes to figuring out which grains to analyze. First and foremost, they must be inclusion-free. Apatites typically have 10's of ppm of U and Th in them, common phases that appear as inclusions (zircon and monazite) can have 1000's of ppm to weight percent U and/or Th, so even tiny inclusions can really screw up your analysis. This is an even bigger problem because the standard method for analyzing apatite involves dissolving them in nitric acid. Apatite dissolves easily in nitric acid, but of course zircon and monazite and absurdly tough to dissolve. So, they will contribute He to the analysis, but the inclusions won't dissolve, and we therefore won't measure the U and Th. Long story, I could go into more detail, but needless to say, your first priority in picking grains is to avoid visible inclusions.

Next, you'd like the crystals to have nice, recognizable crystal faces. Why, you ask? Well, during decay, the He nucleii are shot ~20 microns from the parent nucleus. So, if the parent atom is near the edge of the crystal, there is a good chance it could be ejected out of the crystal and for our purposes, lost. This is called alpha-ejection. We can apply a geometric correction for this, but it assumes a certain crystal form. (For more on alpha ejection see Ken Farley's 1996 paper in Geochimica [v.60 p.4223-4229] or Jeremy Hourigan's 2005 paper in Geochimica [v.69 pp.3349-3365].)

Then, we want them big. The larger the crystal, the smaller the alpha-ejection correction.

This is simplified, but you get the idea. Sometimes you can spend all day on a single sample, trying to find grains that are worth analyzing. Today I spent time looking at very ugly grains, so to boost my morale I am posting some of the pictures I have taken of my favorite apatite crystals. I have picked plenty of ugly separates in my so far short career, but I need a boost, something to re-energize thermochronic.

Also, I signed up for a google alert for the word "apatite" a few weeks ago. The two types of listings I receive from these alerts are:

1. Misspellings of the word appetite (yes, you should still proof-read even if you have spell check), about 6 per day.
   
2. Discount jewelry and/or crystal healing pages (you think if apatite created harmony all of the world's fission track and (U-Th)/He people would be entirely serene), about 3 per day.
   

So, with this post, I should have a listing for beautiful pictures of apatites separated from granitic rocks, some from China, some from Utah. I will also admit up front that I realize I have committed geology sin #1, and not included a scale bar. Take my word for it, they are all 60-150 microns in width.





Those are nice, here is one that has nice form and is huge, but has obvious inclusions


And finally, what do we do with them once we pick them? We pack them! We don't want to heat them directly with a laser, because that can volatilize Th. So, we put them in individual little platinum packets, and heat those. The pictures below show this process, starting with a crystal and Pt tube, and ending with a Pt "microfurnace." Getting pictures taken while holding the tweezers steady enough and in the right place to see everything is one of the greatest accomplishments of my career, hence the need to shamelessly share these all over the web.



Boom, throw it in the laser, dissolve, toss it in the ICP-MS, a little spreadsheet magic and you've got a paper.

Thermochronic's Favorite Online Journal

In college we used to be able to get paper copies of The Onion regularly, anyone traveling up to Madison for some culture on the weekend would always bring one back. When The Onion went online it spawned a rash of internet based time wasting unmatched in modern times. Sometimes their articles, although intended to be funny, are sadly on the mark (look at the publication date of that article). Many times, their science related articles are hilarious, here are some of my favorites, in no particular order:

• Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
• Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method
• Bacon Good For You, Reports Best Scientist Ever
• Caltech Physicists Successfully Split The Bill
• Evolution in our Schools - What Do You Think?
• National Science Foundation: Science Hard
• Late-Working NASA Scientists Discover Moons Over My Hammy
• Creationist Museum Acquires 5,000 Year-Old T.Rex Skeleton
• Study Finds Jack S**t
• Revolutionary New Insoles Combine Five Forms of Pseudoscience
  

This last one isn't from the Onion, but it cracks me up nonetheless. I had it on my office wall in grad school, the caption to Figure 1 is perhaps the greatest part.

• Electron Band Structure in Germanium, My Ass

Enjoy.

Letter to the Editor

Yesterday I wrote and submitted a letter to the editor of the student paper here at ESRU in response to another letter written by an undergraduate discussing intelligent design. My thoughts on the matter are best summer up in this post, but I thought I'd post the original version of my letter nonetheless. I had to shorten the final submission to 250 words, yes, 250 words out of a 12 page paper. I will have less room than a Dominoes ad, but that's the rule! Doesn't matter how many letters are submitted. Anyways, here is the original version, with names omitted to protect the innocent.

In his recent letter to the editor entitled “Consider Creationism without bias,” Mr. Snuffleupagus confuses intelligent design, creationism, evolution, and a belief in God. Believing in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, just as supporting the teaching of intelligent design is not a pre-requisite for people of faith. The reason intelligent design should not be taught in a scientific setting is because of how drastically it changes the definition of science. For hundreds of years, the scientific method has been applied in roughly the same way, creating testable hypothesis, conducting experiments, and refining those hypotheses. Inherent in this is the assumption that there are natural laws that govern the world. What intelligent design does is enter supernatural forces into the mix, something that by definition does not follow natural laws and is therefore untestable. It is one thing to push for supernatural explanations in branches of science most people consider esoteric, but the true test for intelligent design is whether or not you would accept supernatural explanations in all branches of science. Would you accept them from your doctor? Would you accept them from the building engineers or FDA food inspectors? How about physicists who handle nuclear waste, or forensic scientists providing evidence in a murder trial? Of course not, if you went to a doctor deathly ill and they came back with a supernatural diagnosis, you’d find another doctor, one who would run tests and perform experiments until they determined what was wrong using the scientific method. If the engineer’s assessment of the structural stability of your new office building was based on supernatural forces, you’d find another engineer. If you will not accept supernatural explanations in branches of science that directly affect your life, then you cannot accept supernatural explanations in any branch of science.

Please do not confuse evolution with atheism, or intelligent design with science. Evolution, like gravity or plate tectonics or electromagnetism, is a scientific theory; one that has been tested and refined thousands of times and is still the topic of very intense study. Intelligent design is not science, because it profoundly changes the meaning of science and of the scientific method in a way that is potentially very harmful. Belief in science does not preclude belief in a higher power.

Thermochronic
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Department of Earth Sciences

The Great Science Book Challenge #3

As some of you know from this earlier post, I am soliciting suggestions for good science books for a challenge I am taking on. I am also looking for other volunteers, but most important right now, with the March 1st deadline approaching, I need more suggestions for general audience science books. Thanks to those who have sent them along, and see the list so far in my sidebar. Cheers.

More than 3000 words!

In place of a well written and intensively researched post I am instead going to put up three random pictures. I've been experimenting with scanning slides recently, and these are three of my latest. They are



Point Reyes National Seashore. Anyone in Northern California is probably familiar with this place. It is also the northernmost outcrop of "Sierran" granites west of the San Andreas Fault, and the hypocenter for the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. ...Or Something used this area as one of his first Where on (Google) Earth?



A view from the Marin Headlands (actually right across from one of the amazing folded chert outcrops) looking back south into San Francisco.




And finally, the Alabama Hills, a small range in the Owens Valley famous for it's spheroidally weathering granite hills and as a location for shooting movies, including Gunga Din, How the West Was Won, and one scene in Gladiator. That's the Sierra Nevada in the background.

Tc of Thermochronic, or, the temperature dependence of thermochronic's activity level

This weekend, for the first time in a long time, we had sunshine and temperatures above 20°F. This week we are going to get above freezing, well above freezing according to the local weather guy. I have now lived through the human equivalent of a diffusion experiment, and can report with some accuracy about the temperature dependence of activity and movement across phase boundaries. Temperature dependent diffusion is of course something I spend a lot of time thinking about, so here we go.

At moderate temperatures, I diffuse easily into the outer world, going for walks, running errands, bopping around outside with my camera. As the temperature approaches 20°F, it becomes increasingly more difficult to get me to diffuse out of my house. Once we get below about 5°F, willing diffusion (as opposed to going for the mail or shovelling snow) is essentially done with. Once you are over about 40°F, my outdoor activity levels have reached their maximum; this lets me define the ThPAZ (Thermochronic Partial Activity Zone) as the range of temperatures from 5° to 40°F, of course analagous to the HePRZ (Helium Partial Retention Zone) and FTPAZ (Fission-Track Partial Annealing Zone), just at much lower temperatures.
Of course the biggest difference between this diagram and similar ones you may be used to seeing for the HePRZ is the odd behavior at high temperatures, where activity again begins to decline. This high temperature inversion is highly dependant upon the partial pressure of water vapor in the system. At high humidities, the inflection point is at much lower temperatures, 80°F and I am done; at lower humidities the decrease does not begin until well over 100°F.

***I apologize for using Fahrenheit, but for discussing weather it is the only way my brain works. I have no feel for outside or room temperatures in Celsius. On the flipside, I can only think of science in metric terms. I have no idea what the range of granite melting temperatures in °F would be, or the average temperature at the base of the lithosphere. I'd have to do the conversions if I cared either way. We really need to standardize our units of measure.

Merit Badges and MacGyver

I know the MacGyver topic is getting a tab old now, but I was fumbling through the science-o-blogosphere (not as smooth off the tongue as geoblogosphere) and I found this "organization." They call themselves the Order of the Science Scouts of Exemplary Repute and Above Average Physique, and they have a variety of science merit badges they describe, one of which, shown here



is the MacGyver badge! This is the first time I have seen this page, but so far I really like the merit badge idea. Some of the others I like are

The "inappropriate nocturnal use of lab equipment in the name of alternative science experimentation / communication" badge.

and

The "my degree inadvertantly makes me competent in fixing household appliances" badge.

One I would like to see is a "successfully salvaged lab equipment from a dumpster" badge, just remembering some of my proudest moments.

Can't we all just propagate our errors?

This weekend I continued to work on a lab software upgrade for one of the labs I work in. This is all part of an effort on my part to streamline sample analysis, automate as much as possible, and make the data reduction smoother and more versatile. For those of you who care, I am doing everything with LabView, my programming platform of choice. My first step in the process is to go through the existing sets of code, figure out what does what, and decide if I want to copy the process or change things around.

This got me thinking, again, about error propagation. Most of the significant errors in the existing code are dealt with appropriately, but there are some very easy ones that are just ignored. Truth is, most calculations are fairly easy to propagate errors through, and I am a firm believer that uncertainty must be dealt with honestly, even if in the end it is insignificant. The most popular geochronologic data reduction tool (I am guessing) is Ken Ludwig's Isoplot. This does an excellent job with uncertainties, assuming of course the users report them all. But, Isoplot doesn't interface with the machines, and it can only work with the data it is given.

For this reason I think that the book An Introduction to Error Analysis by John R. Taylor (a physicist from the University of Colorado) should be required for anyone who works in a lab or with the data from a lab. All of the basic methods to propagate uncertainties are covered and explained very well. This doesn't discuss some of the more complicated methods common in geochronology (e.g. the MSWD), but for a starter and reference text it is well worth it. It also isn't directed towards the earth sciences, but again, the basics are the basics. For example, to calculate the size and correct for the depletion of a spike or standard shot of gas, you need to know the reservoir tank and pipette volumes, and the pressure of the gas in the tank (partial pressure if your gas isn't pure). Associating uncertainties with each of these measurements is fairly straightforward, so any number that comes out of these values, say size of spike, or a correction for ionization efficiency, should include those propagated uncertainties. Numbers without uncertainties really don't exist in geology, but they show up in data reduction all the time.

Dealing with errors in a realistic and representative way is the first step. Getting people to report them, even when they are crappy, is the second.

MacGyver Guest-Star Tangent, Masters of the Universe

So I've received many emails and comments asking me to post something about all of the important actors who guest starred on MacGyver, Patron Saint of Thermochronologists (I've proposed this as the new title for the show, I've yet to hear back from the studio). I plan on such a post, but I stumbled across something early in my research that I had to bring to your attention.

I was on IMDB.com linking through some of the people on the guest star list when I clicked on the link for Kristian Alfonso, who appeared in two episodes of MacGyver, Patron Saint of Thermochronologists. Under the list of movies she was appearing in, was

He-Man and the Masters of the Universe

! What is even better is that she isn't the voice for a character on a cartoon, no, this is going to be a live action thriller, with one of the writing credits going to M. Night Shyamalan!? Both Skeletor and Man-At-Arms are being played by guys from professional wrestling? This is nowhere near as exciting as when I first saw the preview for the also upcoming Transformers movie, but still. Actually, let's be honest, the movie will probably blow. He-Man is, however, a good nickname for a dude who works with helium, so even though I never cared much for the cartoon, it still grabs my attention.

This also got me thinking about the degree I had wished I had earned, that being a Masters of the Universe. I thought about this at a time when my alma mater was introducing yet another advanced degree title, something like Ph.D. in Earth Science or something. The argument being that for some people, advanced degrees in geological and environmental sciences, or geophysics, or whatever weren't specific enough, they needed something that fit their particular research more snugly. They worry that a potential employer would be wowed by their publications and letters of reference, but potentially cast them aside because their Ph.D. was in too general of a field. This is an argument I find completely ridiculous. I have a degree in geological and environmental sciences, I'd prefer it to just be geology (my research and skillz are focused in geology) but I never for once thought that anyone really cares that much. Wouldn't my CV be more important than my official title? This trend is common in undergraduate degrees, at least in the sciences, where your major can be in earth systems geosphere tract instead of geology, 3 or 4 variations on chemistry or biology, etc. It seems kind of absurd.

Anyway, I then decided that instead of making degrees more specific, we need the broadest one possible, namely, the Masters of the Universe (MsUn). Think about it, any potential employer would immediately associate the holder of such a degree with s superhero, one that is confident enough in himself to wear leather underwear. In addition, He-Man allegedly got his power from the mineral Korodite, which makes the inclusion of this degree in an earth science framework even more plausible.

According to Wikipedia, Captain Ivan Drago, err, I mean Dolph Lundgren played He-Man in a 1987 film adaptation, which I haven't seen. But I have high hopes, not for this movie, but for the surge of energy it will give the movement to create a Masters of the Universe program somewhere in the world.

Angus MacGyver, Patron Saint of Noble Gas Labs

I'd like to nominate MacGyver as the patron saint of noble gas thermochronology labs. I had originally thought that perhaps he could represent all labs, and perhaps I need to expand my definition, but I have my reasons. Let me explain. For those of you who don't know, MacGyver was one of the greatest television action heroes/good guys of all time. Like most TV heroes, he almost never failed, but what made him unique were three important characteristics.

1. He hated guns. Except in one early episode, he never touched them. This leads directly to point number 2, but also explains why my mom let me watch the show. I like this, noble gas thermochronologists are a peace loving bunch.
2. "Mac" was resourceful, and often called upon his vast background in "science" and "engineering," crafting weapons, picking locks, breaking through security systems, opening doors, and in general saving the world using his Swiss Army Knife, duct tape, and whatever pieces of junk happened to be lying around. I'll get to this later. Oh, and for the record, I don't care if most of what he did was BS, it was still sweet. And, allegedly the producers made things slightly impossible so stupid kids in places like Sacramento didn't try to replicate his bombs and booby traps, just an idea.
3. He was supposed to be Canadian. Seriously, how many other Canadian action heroes were huge on American TV? Richard Dean Anderson, the actor who played MacGyver, is a Minnesotan who only took to acting when his hockey career was put on hold, which in my opinion is the best training an American can have for playing a Canadian.

MacGyver is the patron saint of noble gas labs because of his resourcefullness. On TV, MacGyver destroys a laser using smashed up binoculars and cigarettes, plugs a leaking vat of acid with a chocolate bar, and made a bomb out of cold medicine. In the time of need, he has no budget, and has to work with what is around. Doesn't that sound familiar! How can I fix this with the half broken old lab equipment that is lying around ? I summon my inner MacGyver all the time, clamping together 3 different size KF flanges so I don't have to order the proper reduction fitting, using the brackets I had made for the pneumatic valves for every structural support need except the pneumatic valves, the old UHV gauge controller with the "warning, may produce lethal shock" sticker that I "rescued" and used for 2 years. The list goes on. Not as impressive as the real MacGyvers, but hey..

In addition, MacGyver just looks like a geochronologist.


Check it out, here he is checking on his LMT heavy fraction. Ooooooh, lots of heavies, yes!


And here he is at the power source for the magnetic sector mass spectrometer. Hmmm, I think the problem is with the z-deflector, maybe the accelerating voltage is low...



This is when he was trying to figure out which integrated circuit blew during the power outage, man this takes forever. Thank god I have my leather bomber jacket


OK, I think the tube is ready for the reactor. And, let me add, that is obviously a paleontologist in the background, they probably want MacGyver to tell them how old some ash beds are, that's all they ever want from us.



Check out my LMT lights, I can totally get enough kspar out of this for an Ar MDD analaysis. But first, let me have a drink from my NHL water bottle, go Sabres!


And he even does field work. On the Colorado Plateau! Must be a detrital zircon thing. Let me guess, there's a Grenvillian Peak. By the way, polar fleece long before it was popular. Mac was a trendsetter.

So in conclusion I am trying to think of all of the random things that were commonplace in my lab. Aluminum foil, of course, rolls and rolls of Reynolds Wrap, Q-tips, unwaxed dental floss for the cryogenic cold trap, binder clips, balloons, cinder blocks, toothpicks, the little radioactive source from a film duster....Nothing compared to the great one, but a start. I'm interested what other non-traditional lab supplies are in use out there.

And, by the way, his first name was Angus, at least according to the infallible oracle of all knowledge. It only came out in the last episode, the same one where he found out he had a long lost son.

Helicopters, Fishing Boats, Mountain Goats, and lots of Horse Flies

The other day I saw a talk given by a friend of mine whom I met during my first real geologic field experience. When I was an undergrad student at a tiny liberal arts college in the American Midwest, my advisor was a co-PI on a project looking into the development of the Canadian Coast Ranges. I was mainly a field assistant and hauler of rocks, but I did manage to get a (now embarassingly poor but at the time pretty sweet) senior thesis out of it. More important, I got to spend two field seasons in northern British Columbia and meet all kinds of geologists who helped me form my idea of what my science career would look like. A geologic post about the area might come some time, but for now I am simply posting some of the field photos I recently scanned (from back in my Kodachrome days). All of these pictures are from near the Skeena River, just east of Prince Rupert, B.C. I mainly worked on the Quottoon Pluton, mapping fabrics and contacts, with some P-T-ometry and thin section work back in the lab. Working in BC is pretty incredible. The geology is spectacular. The only real downsides are that it rains almost all the time, and that there are more black flies, mosquitos, and horse flies per square meter than anywhere I have ever been. My field books from those seasons are covered with their guts. Anyways

This is one of our camps, you can see our tents in the saddle. All of the work was helicopter based, we'd put in for a week or two at a time. Pretty amazing for sure. I must admit my mode of field transport has been all down hill since then.

I have no idea what the name of this lake is.

These two might explain why I ended up buying and reading and recommending A Beast the Color of Winter (see sidebar). We did most of our hiking on goat trails, and would see them all over the place. They are really amazing animals. I'll never claim to be a mountaineer, but these things, even the babies, make us all look like cows. I am pretty sure that acrophobia has been selected against in mountain goats.

How Old is this Rock?

I had originally meant to take on the Just Science week Challenge, where I'd write a new entry every day about science and science only, no Bears, no music of the week, no asinine and unproductive bill brought up by some pandering politician. But, I flaked. Brian of ..Or Something fame kicked this challenge's ass. But, I decided that instead of daily posts, why not one ginormous one, guaranteed not to be read by even my most dedicated friend? So here you go, the science of Geochronology. I intend to come back to different aspect of this topic in the future, just as I have discussed it in the recent past.

Geochronology is an umbrella term for all of the techniques we use to determine the absolute ages of rocks and/or individual minerals. All modern geochronology is based on measuring the stable daughter atoms produced during the radioactive decay of naturally occurring elements, most notably uranium (U), thorium (Th), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), and lutecium (Lu). It is now common and fairly simple to measure the absolute abundances of these elements in rocks, or in many cases individual crystals, with a high degree of precision. As a geochronologist, the real work comes with figuring out what those ages mean.

The title of this post is a question I've been asked many times, and in truth is impossible to answer. Rocks have very complex lives and change continually on a variety of timescales. Each radioactive parent and stable daughter nuclide has specific characteristics that determine their inclusion and retention in geologic materials. When you date a rock you are really dating some event or process that the rock experienced. Some systems can be interpreted to record the age of formation of a rock. Others record the time when a rock cooled to a certain temperature. I've seen geochronologic data misused by lots of different kind of people. There is of course the young-earth crowd, but I really don't want to waste time on them (in this post). What is more disconcerning from my standpoint is how often I have seen data misused by trained geologists. In the past year I've seen talks where sanidine K-Ar ages from the 1970's were compared with U-Pb ages from the 1950's; I could tell that the speakers grasp on the philosophy and method of geochronology was simply nonexistent. I am more lenient when non-geologists misunderstand radiometric dating techniques, but when the data is something that you depend on, well....What it really comes down to is:

1. What are the chemical and physical properties of the parent and daughter nuclides?
2. When did the mineral that contains the parent and daughter nuclides form? Is it igneous, metamorphic, has it been deformed or recrystallized?

Calculating an age is pretty straightforward, all you need to know if

1. the number of parent atoms
2. the number of daughter atoms
3. the decay rate of the radioactive parent

When I've taught radioactive decay to classes in the past, I've found that one of the biggest mental stumbling blocks that students have to overcome is how a process which is completely random on the scale of an individual atom (whether or not it will disintegrate) can, on a larger scale, be completely predictable. It is of course all a probability thing, each radioactive atom has a specific probability that it will decay (the decay constant). Below is a graph of observed decay rates from a "radioactive parent nuclide," compared to a expected line.

Actually, these particles aren't radioactive, they are chocolate. These are the results of the great M&M experiment from a class I taught in 2004. M&M's, it turns out, are fantastic for illustrating this principle (pennies would work just as well, but for some reason the classes are never as enthusiastic about those.) M&M's have an "M" printed on only one side of the candy. So, you put 100 of these in a paper cup, dump them out onto your desk, and count the number of pieces that landed with the "M" side up. These are considered to have decayed, so you remove them, place the undecayed candies back in the cup, and repeat until all of the M&M's are gone. I even had them calculate an M&M "half life", the result of which you can see in the corner of the graph (± 1 sigma). I'd have groups of students do this with 100 pieces 5 times each. Then we'd compile the data as a class. Most people are comfortable with the idea that you have a 50/50 chance of an M&M landing heads up, but if a particular piece decays is random. This is directly analogous to the decay constant for a radioactive element. Each atom has a specific chance of decaying. The only real difference is that decay constants are in terms of some time value (per year, second, etc..), while the M&M decay constant is in terms of "rounds." These results are always impressive to me, that we can get such good results from ~4000 "atoms," especially when the average zircon used for U-Pb geochronology contains hundreds of trillions of U atoms, boo-yah, counting statistics.

U-Pb geochronology is unique among geochronometers in that it is actually two separate decay systems in one. There are two relatively abundant naturally occurring isotopes of uranium, ²³⁵U (which decays to ²⁰⁷Pb) and ²³⁸U (which decays to ²⁰⁶Pb). ²³⁸U is by far the most common (now), but every crystal or rock or anything that has ²³⁸U also has ²³⁵U. The ²³⁸U/²³⁵U ratio is actually exceedingly well known; it probably ranks up there among the best known numbers in physical science (thanks to the nuclear weapons industry). Why is this number so constant? Well, because different isotopes of U have the exact same chemical behavior, so they are never fractionated. But, fractionation is a topic for another post. What is important though, from a geochronological standpoint, is that every time you measure a U-Pb age, you are actually making two completely independent and separate geochronologic age measurements, one for the ²³⁸U-²⁰⁶Pb system, and another for ²⁰⁷U-²³⁵Pb. ²³⁸U has a longer half-life, and therefore decays more slowly.



This figure shows the evolution of different U and Pb isotopes in a closed system over time. Basically, start out with 1000 atoms of ²³⁸U and ²³⁵U, and let them evolve for 4.5 Ga. In truth, of course, the materials we use have trillions of times more U, and ²³⁸U and ²³⁵U are never equally abundant, so I've normalized the graph. But, you see the point. The solid lines are U, with red being ²³⁵U and blue ²³⁸U. The dashed lines are Pb, with red ²⁰⁷Pb and blue ²⁰⁶Pb. Either one of these can be used to calculate an age. But, the real power of the technique comes when we use both. Because the decay schemes are independant, the ratios evolve separately. But, if ur measurements of the decay rates are correct (which they are), then the ages from the two systems should agree. The collection of agreeable isotopic ratios is referred to as concordia.
The red dots represent specific time values, and the blue line is called concordia. U-Pb age determinations which fall on this line are called "concordant." There are a variety of processes which can cause ages to fall off of concordia (Pb-loss, multiple crystallization events, etc..), which actually lends more power to the technique. So, every time someone calculates U-Pb ages, they are actually also double-checking the decay constants of the isotopes. If these changed over time, as a few non-scientists claim, then concordia could never work. We actually use the above diagram, called a Wetherill plot, and a similar plot


called a Tera-Wasserburg diagram, to evaluate U-Pb data. These two methods have their different strengths, which I won't go into here (right now at least.)

U-Pb geochronology has a lot of other advantages. The primary crystal we analyze, zircon, does not like to incorporate Pb into it's crystal structure, which means that almost all of the Pb we measure is the product of radioactive decay (U likes to substitute for the Zr in the zircon structure.) Zircon is also great, because it is very common in rocks, and, as people like the famous ..Or Something wrote about, is tough enough to survive significant erosion and transportation and therefore pops up in sedimentary rocks all the time, giving a great deal of insight into sources and transport of sediment.

It also turns out that Pb does not diffuse out of zircon very quickly. In many cases, even if the system has experience really high temepratures, high enough to melt many common rock forming minerals (quartz, felspar..), the zircon will survive and retain it's U and Pb. If you have carefully evaluated the textural relationship of the zircon to the rock, you can often say that the zircon U-Pb age marks the time of crystallization of that crystal, and perhaps that rock.

K-Ar dating, or the more powerful Ar/Ar variant, works essentially the same way. Minerals like to take up potassium, and one isotope of potassium is radioactive. Minerals don't generally take up any argon, at least none in the crystal structure. So we measure the amount of K and the amount of Ar and we can calculate an age. The reason Ar/Ar is different is that we can use a proxy for measuring the K content, this makes the measurement process and the information we can recover from a crystal much more powerful. I will post about Ar/Ar geochronology later, I don't want to go into the details. I think one of the most amazing and interesting proofs of the K-Ar system was published in a 1997 paper by Paul Renne et al.,

P. R. Renne, W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi, L. Civetta (1997) ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger, Science, v. 277, p. 1279-1280.

In this study they dated ash from the 79 A.D. eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. This is one of the hardest kinds of analysis to do, on a geologic time scale barely any time has passed for Ar to accumulate. But, as shown below, they actually nail the date reported by Pliny the Younger (a recording witness) well within error.

Pliny the Younger would have predicted 1918 years, they got 1925 ± 94.

The chemical and physical behavior of Ar makes the K-Ar system very powerful. Unlike Pb, Ar is a light gas, and when a rock is hot, Ar can diffuse out of the system almost instantaneously. We know a lot of Ar exits rocks into the atmosphere, about 1% of what we breathe is argon. Anyways, K-Ar, or Ar/Ar dates don't really tell you when a rock or crystal formed, but more when it cooled to a certain temperature. This is analogous to the (U-Th)/He system I blogged about here. Different minerals retain Ar differently. So, in the same rock, Ar/Ar ages from 2 or 3 different minerals can help chart the cooling history of the sample. Radiometric techniques that are primarily dependent on temperature are called thermochronometers. The elite earth scientists who use thermochronometers are thermochronologists. Think of thermochronologists as the navy seal or olympic athlete of the geology world.

So how old is this rock? Well, it depends. Do you want to know when that crystal formed? When the rock cooled near the surface? When the crystals that make up that sandstone formed? When the sandstone was deposited? All ages are not the same, but interesting things can happen when you hit the geochronic.

Earthquakes, Radon, Satellites, and Humidity

I have a habit of downloading and reading random earth science articles with catchy titles. Sometimes I stumble on ideas that are allegedly prevalent in some branch of earth science, but about which I knew nothing. I recently had this experience when looking through the latest issue of Tectonophysics. The article I am talking about is by S.A. Pulinets and M.A. Dunajecka from Ciudad Universitaria in Mexico. As a disclaimed I will state now that I am neither an earthquake expert or an atmospheric chemist, so I would be interested in hearing the opinions of specialists in either of those fields. I'd hate to inadvertently promote pseudoscience. The full reference is

Pulinets, S.A. and Dunajecka, M.A. (2007) Specific variations of air temperature and relative humidity around the time of [the] Michoacan earthquake M8.1 Sept. 19, 1985 as a possible indicator of interaction between tectonic plates, Tectonophysics, v. 431, p. 221-230.

It has been known for a while that radon levels in the atmosphere can correspond to tectonic activity. Direct measurements of radon levels have shown large fluctuations immediately preceding earthquakes. What this paper presents is the idea that instead of a direct measurement of radon levels, remotely sense temperature and humidity measurements can be used as a proxy for the same phenomena. When Radon in the air decays, it ionizes other nearby molecules or atoms. These newly formed ions are then hydrated by atmospheric water, with the result that air humidity drops. The latent heat of evaporation is released from the water during the phase transformation, which results in a temperature increase. So, big pulses of Radon into the atmosphere, as are associated with tectonic activity and seem to occur leading up to earthquakes, results in an initial decrease in humidity and increase in temperature. The radon flux reaches a maximum and starts to decrease just prior to the "seismic shock", during which time there is a corresponding rise in humidity and drop in temperature.

Truth is I do not feel like that good of a filter for climate data, because from my perspective, the data presented in this paper do not seem as tell-tale as the authors imply. There are many swings in temperature and humidity that are not associated with earthquakes. But, I am still intrigued. I have heard the term "earthquake weather" before, which usually makes me chuckle.. But the temperature and humidity swings presented in this paper would definitely be noticeable. Anyways, I'd love input from anyone who knows more about this, I learned long ago not to trust everything that is published (as a matter of fact, I am counting on that for this paper I am working on, perhaps these authors have been asked one time too many when that paper is going to be done, and they just wanted it out the door). They reference many similar studies, which is reason enough to visit the library.

The Great Science Book Challenge #2

Thanks to those of you who have suggested books, please keep them coming! I now have, and will regularly update, a list of the recommended books on my sidebar, right under the "Latest from the Geoblogosphere." Warning: Actual science post in the making.

The Great Science Book Challenge

So I've recently become inspired by Mrs. Apaprent-dip-but-with-a-different-last name. She has also started blogging, she is a humanities person (humanitite? that sounds like a mineral, I like it), and has become involved with various online challenges, basically reading X number of books from category Y in time amount Z. Considering my recent posts putting forth my belief that geology needs good public outreach folks, she suggested I start a similar sort of challenge. The idea is that I will come up with 5 science books written for non-scientists that I will read and blog about in the space of a year. 5 books in a year, I know, big challenge, it may go more quickly, but I didn't want to make it impossible, and I want as many people to join me as can. 5 books in a year, that's a little under 1 book every two months, which means I can do this at my normal "non work related reading" clip, just that the selections will be more focused. This seems reasonable (even considering my recent pushes to finish up papers and prepare for a field season). What I would like advice on though are books to read. The ground rules:

1. It must not be a text-book or overly technical treatment, it should be something intended for a more general audience, something you could find in a well stocked bookstore.
   
2. At the same time, it can't be lame. I know that word can mean lots of things, but I want works that are "dense," not picture books or coffee table books.
   
3. I'd prefer at least 2 of the 5 to be geology or earth science related, the other 3 could be any other branch of science.
4. I'd like most of them to be relatively recent books, in other words, I don't want this to be a tour of the classic science texts of yesteryear.
5. No biographies. As much as I like those, I want the main purpose of the book to be explaining or exposing some aspect of science.
6. No wilderness manifestos. I love reading Ed Abbey, but it isn't what I am looking for right now.
   

So I have an idea of some books that fit this bill. I have already read them, but they may give you a good idea of what I mean.

1. The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. This is one of the best books, let along science books, I have ever read. It is fat and intimidating, but impossible to put down.
2. The Age of the Earth by Brent Dalrymple. This book grew out of material he had prepared for a court case, and therefore aimed at people with no background. Still, as a geochronologist, I found it complete and fascinating.
3. A Beast the Color of Winter by Douglas Chadwick. This is a natural history of mountain goats. In college I was lucky enough to work on a field project in northern British Columbia. We spent a lot of time in remote camps, high in the coast ranges. I was, and still am amazed by Mountain Goats, and how stupid and timid they made me look trekking around in the mountains. This book was a surprising read for me, I originally bought it hoping for good goat pictures, but the way he describes the goats is just amazing. This book also begins with one of my favorite quotes :

"It is only a statement of physical fact to say: Mountains are as close as the surface of our planet reaches towards the heavens. The purest air, the purest water, and the purest light on earth are found among these great uplifted forms."

Excellent, let's see what kind of a list we can generate, pass this along to anyone you can think of, at the very least, even if no one else wants to join the challenge, it would be great for me to compile a list of books that we professional scientists consider to be among the best.

So here is where you come in. First, I solicit volunteers to join me, with a start date of March 1. Second, I need suggestions for books, I don't care what discipline, just let me know what you consider to be the best science writing around.

Watch as thermochronic speeds through the 5 stages of grief after a horrible performance by the Bears in the superbowl.

1. I can't believe the Bears just lost the superbowl, there must be some mistake, this isn't happening! Someone must have paid the refs! The Colts are on steroids! Were those french figure skating refs? Maybe the real game is next week, yeah, this can't be real, must be a dream, I'll wake up soon.

2. What the bleep! The bleeping defense couldn't stop anything, damn them, damn them to hell! And come on, make a fricking tackle! Catch the fricking ball! What, another fumble! Bleeping overpaid donkeys! My rabbit could block better than that! That's it, I am done with these jackasses, done, D-U-N done, I give up on these losers, overpaid crybaby can't tackle losers!

3. OK, come on, I'll trade you, you can let the Cubs not make the playoffs for the next 100 years, let Cal win the big game, let Duke win the NCAA tourney, I don't care, come on, we can make a deal! Here, take my helium lab, I don't care, I'll make you first author on this paper I am writing, you can have my office, let's just go back and end the game 30 seconds into the first quarter. No one will know! We can do this, just a little favor for a friend!

4. I can't believe this, I'll never be able to recover. I think I'll call in sick tomorrow, drink my sorrows away. It is dark outside, like in my soul. Will the sun ever shine again? Not on me it won't. Darkness, sadness, Mazzy Star and Hank Williams, Stan Rogers' First Christmas, that movie "Leaving Las Vegas", Ben Harpers first album..Sniff sniff, how could this happen, and why does this always happen to me !?!? (now picture me with my fists raised up towards the sky cursing the world, then breaking down into a fetal position and crying, just like Jimmy Bakker, in the rain, alone, with people laughing at me, very very sad).

5. It's OK, it's just a game where millionaires run into each other for 60 minutes, and Prince wasn't that bad, and that "Mapasaurus" commercial, that was kind of funny, and hell, it beats picking apatites all day. I can get through this. Next year, Grossman will be better, Urlacher will be back, our defensive line will be healthy.... I'll be OK. March Madness is almost here, things will be OK. It's just a stupid game, right?

Mississippi House Bill 625 Dies!

Woo-hoo! The Mississippi House bill (#625) I blogged about here officially died in committee on January 31st. This bill would have required Incompetent Design to be taught in public schools along with evolution. This bill said nothing of the flying spaghetti monster, probably an oversight by the bill's author, Mike Lott.

Anybody need $10,000?

I am by no means an expert when it comes to climate change, so I will leave the more technical posts for my fellow geoblogofolks (see the sidebar). What I would like to point out is something Mrs. Apparent-Dip-but-with-a-different-last-name (mad props) told me about and was reported on CNN Money. Turns out that in response to the IPCC report, ExxonMobil has offered some climate scientists $10,000 for critiques of the conclusions (which, for the bajillionth time in the past decade state very clearly that humans are causing climate change). Now of course oil industry funding in the earth sciences is nothing new, after all, geologists do plenty of oil finding. What I think is unique in this case, and disturbing, is the predetermination of the outcome. I know plenty of people doing industry funded studies, I am sure it is common in other branches of science as well, but when is that conditional on the outcome. Sounds very wild west to me, "Look, there's a bounty on that thar climate report! Wanted, dead or alive!" But, on the plus side, if funding is tight, perhaps I can convince them that apatite (U-Th)/He thermochronology proves the earth is cooling, out of control cooling, my latest data says we are heading to runaway global cooling, straight into snowball earth! OK, it doesn't, but 10 grand could set me up at a sweet hotel for GSA. This is disappointing news considering recent good signs from the same company.