tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-199771672024-03-13T11:07:29.028-07:00The Western GeologistA variety of perspectives by geologists about science, politics, religion and other things geologists like.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1175545348222971492007-04-02T13:04:00.000-07:002007-04-02T13:22:28.233-07:00MIT Scientists Confirm That Earth's Core is "Really, Really Hot"According to <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/02/content_5926061.htm">this article</a>, from China's Xinhua news agency, the Earth's core is officially "really, really hot." Apparently, it was previously only "really hot." Yes, those are in fact technical terms.Capt. Obsidianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12006137359140272626noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1171720135596812902007-02-17T05:22:00.000-08:002007-02-17T05:48:55.610-08:00Revisiting USGS interval reviewOne of the people I referred to in my <a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/12/usgs-internal-review-and-censorship.html"> earlier post</a> about the internal review policy of the USGS has left a comment on that thread. It's reprodced below:<br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />Hi All:<br />In my earlier post to the obscure ACG listserve, which was reproduced in this more public forum, I wrote, "...However, there have been instances of BRD people not having appropriate peer review when publishing things. There was one BRD pub that clearly had a biased slant toward caribou-pipeline interactions." <br />I was recently made aware that the said report (A) DID have full internal review, and (B) was NOT biased. I based my comments on the media representation of the report, and I was not fully informed. I apologize for misleading readers in this way and for mischaracterizing the report.<br /><br />Regards, Peter<br /></blockquote></i><br /><br />I'd like to thank Peter for his comment, although I doubt that the ACG listserv is any more obscure than this blog. We get about 35 visitors per day, and most don't stick around all that long. I'd like to thank the ones that do. <br /><br />Here's what I wrote about the 2002 study:<br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />In 2002 a group headed by a USGS scientist published a report that dealt in part with the potential impact of the development of ANWR. This group had studied the caribou herds in that part of Alaska for 12 years and one of their findings was that female caribou who were either close to giving birth or had young calves tended to avoid roads and pipelines (they apparently preferred to be at least 4 km away from those features). That study reported that full development of 1002 area of ANWR (the area where the proposed drilling would occur) was likely to cause mortality rates of calves in the local caribou herd to decrease by 8.2%, and that a reduction of 4.6% was sufficient to cause growth of the herd to cease (Figure 3.28 in their report shows their data). The reason this caused a problem is that the scenario they used to arrive at their 8.2% calculation wasn't necessarily realistic since it was based on all of the 1002 area being developed and that wasn't necessarily realistic. Some development scenarios had plans with a much smaller footprint (you can see a map of all the plans in the follow up memo). The authors of the original study were taken to task for not including these plans in their report. The follow up memo included the predicted mortalities based on 2 more realistic drilling plans (the mortalities were estimated using exactly the same procedures as in the original report). The predicted mortalities for those two models were 0.7 and 1.2 %. The authors of the original report had in fact included models that didn't required full development (again you can see a map of their scenarios in the follow up memo), but they just focused on the 8.2 % figure (the worst case scenario). The USGS is not supposed to set or advocate policy although USGS authors can evaluate proposed scenarios, but they can't pick a favorite. The 2002 report crossed that line.<br /><br />In addition both the original 2002 report and the follow up memo are available on line so I think it's difficult to claim that the authors were censored.</blockquote></i><br /><br />I wonder if Peter would consider that a fair characterization of the events surrounding the 2002 report and the follow up memo. Since their report was properly internally reviewed, I do agree that there wasn't any impropriety on the part of the report's authors (I apologize for stating that there was). However, it still seems to me to be difficult to support the claim that the 2002 report was censored since that report is still available. Moreover, the mortality rates in the follow up memo were calculated using the same models as in the original report, and the conclusion of 2002 report does seem to be based on an unrealistic drilling scenario.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1171503309917834422007-02-14T17:08:00.000-08:002007-02-14T17:35:09.936-08:00A few reflections on recent goings onThis post is going to be a somewhat random dump of the thoughts that are currently spinning around in my head. I apologize in advance. I haven't posted in a while so I feel obligated to post something.<br /><br />I'm currently in my first year in a teaching position. Prior to this I was in a pure research position. I'm currently striving to find some balance between the two. This semester I'm directly teaching three classes and overseeing 5 labs (my teaching load was similar last semester). I'm also trying to get a decent amount of research done too, which is proving difficult. I did recently get ahold of a seriously cool portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) machine, which I've wanted for some time now and have very ambitious plans for. I've got 1300 samples waiting to be scanned in my lab (plus another 1200 from a friend). I'm also just drooling at the chance to take this thing out into the field and start using it on outcrops. I've got a couple in mind, but they'll probably have to wait until summer 2008. Our department is also fortunate enough to have several motivated, bright, curious, undergrads who are interested in working on independent research projects with me. I'm grateful for them. I hope that I don't squash their interest in geology.<br /><br />My most recent publication was highlighted by the editor of the journal I submitted it to, and I also just found out that it appeared in the 'Research Highlights' section of Nature. That's not nearly as good as having a publication in Nature, but I'll take it. <br /><br />Our puppy was recently spayed and she REALLY wants to wrestle with our other dog instead of taking it easy in her crate. She's not the convalescent type. She's supposed to be on the equivalent of bed rest, but she'd much rather chase her brother around the house and go outside and chase birds. I'm especially looking forward to the time when we can give her a bath (she's not supposed to get wet for a couple of weeks). Luckily she's really fond of standing in the shower, so we don't have to struggle with her when it's bath time. Our other dog howls like he's being killed when we try to give him a bath (although he's much better behaved if we take him to a groomer). I'm very anxiously looking forward to the time when our pup loses interest in our shoes. Fortunately she likes my wife's shoes more than she does mine. <br /><br />I think I may have found the Texas equivalent of Chris Buttars. See <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-evolution_14tex.ART.State.Edition1.298e1cb.html">this link</a>. I wait with bated breath to see what comes of this. (ht Pharyngula).<br /><br />I recently started reading Francis Collins' book 'The Language of God'. My mom sent it to me. I'm thinking of posting my thoughts after each chapter. I've finished a chapter and a half now, and I'm generally feeling frustrated/annoyed. Collins is a fairly engaging writer, but his arguments in favor of theism haven't been stellar as of yet (maybe they get better).<br /><br />I'm thinking of trying to brew mead. I've been homebrewing off and on for a few years, and I'd really like to branch out. When I was in grad school one of the profs gave me a bottle of a great, dry pear-flavored mead that he'd made. I don't know how to describe the taste, but it was wonderful. I'd like to see if I could make something like that. I'm also considering making a Grand Cru or something similar. Just before I left California I went to a microbrewery in Sacramento that made one of the best Belgian-style ales I've ever had. It was, by itself, almost enough to make me want to live in Sacramento. This part of Texas doesn't have a lot of microbreweries (St. Arnold's in Houston is the closest). <br /><br />OK, that's all I have for now. I ought to get back to work.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1168353384773585032007-01-09T06:35:00.000-08:002007-01-09T06:47:57.836-08:00Some older posts revisitedI'm going to start the new year by revisiting some posts I uploaded last year.<br /><br />The first is on the occurrence of anomalous fossils in the geologic record. <br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/02/fossil-record.html">The fossil record</a><br /><br /><br />The second is on ice cores:<br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/03/gisp2-ice-core-and-age-of-earth.html">The GISP2 ice core and the age of the earth</a>Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1167436511881119892006-12-29T15:32:00.000-08:002006-12-29T15:55:11.893-08:00Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: The Board Game<a href="http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=SFNT">The Living Waters Store</a> has this gem of a game for sale: <a href="http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=536">Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Board Game</a>.<br /><blockquote>Evangelistic, educational, entertaining.<br /><br />At last, a board game that reveals the insanity of perhaps the greatest hoax of our times -- the unscientific "theory of evolution."<br /><br />"Intelligent Design vs Evolution" is unique in that the playing pieces are small rubber brains and each team plays for "brain" cards. Each player uses his or her brains to get more brains, and the team with the most brains wins. It has been designed to make people think . . . and that's exactly what it does.<br /><br />"Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are doing much more than revealing the bankruptcy of molecules-to-man evolution. They have a greater purpose: proclaiming biblical authority and reaching the lost with the precious gospel message. Enjoy this wonderful family game as you also become better equipped to defend our precious Christian faith." -- Ken Ham, President, Answers in Genesis.</blockquote><br /><br />I've <a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/01/chris-buttars-origins-of-life-bill-in.html">said it before</a>, your "precious Christian faith" does not necessarily preclude a belief in evolution. What precludes a belief in evolution is the unnecessarily literal word-for-word interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.<br /><br />Hat tip to <a href="http://www.fark.com/tech/">Fark</a> for this one. I love the headline submitted:<br /><blockquote>"Intelligent Design: The Board Game." Because "Evolution: The Board Game" takes far to long to play and you can't make up the rules as you go along.</blockquote>Capt. Obsidianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12006137359140272626noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1166888975419896972006-12-23T07:49:00.000-08:002006-12-23T07:49:35.436-08:00USGS internal review and censorshipAppointees of the Bush Administration have been accused of censoring and distorting data that was incompatible with their ideological views. <a href=" http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02/10/people-at-nasa-must-be-breathing-a-sigh-of-relief/">George Deutsch</a> a press officer at NASA who wanted the word 'theory' inserted after The Big Bang (insisting it was a religious view) and tried to keep reporters away from NASA scientist Jim Hansen is an example.<br /><br />I'm a little late with this but earlier this week I read a <a href=" http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/12/authoritarianism-incompetence-and.html<br />">post</a> at Red State Rabble about the internal review policy of the U.S. Geological Survey (see <a href=" http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2006/12/13/2788266-ap.html">here</a> and <a href=" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301991.html">here</a>). The articles I linked to suggest that the USGS is instituting a policy to censor data that aren't compatible with Bush Administration policies. While I don't think the present administration has behaved very responsibly when it comes to handling data I don't think the USGS internal review policy is being installed to stifle scientists.<br /><br />There has been a very interesting discussion of this policy on the <a href=" http://list.dordt.edu/mailman/private/acg">listserv</a> of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists (you'll need to set up an account in order to access the archive). Several current USGS employees have contributed to that discussion. I've reproduced one of the responses, by Peter Haeussler, who works for the USGS in Anchorage, Alaska below:<br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />First, a history lesson on the different divisions of the USGS. There's the NMD - national mapping division (makes maps), the WRD - Water Resources Division (does water stuff), the GD - Geologic division (geologic mapping, energy, minerals, earthquakes, volcanos, climate change, etc), and now the BRD - Biological Resources Division (the biology folks pulled out of Fish and Wildlife Service, NPS, and perhaps BLM in the early days of the Clinton administration under Bruce Babbit as Secretary of the Interior. Babbit wanted to start an organization equivalent to the USGS for biology folks, but Newt Gingrich and the contract on America didn't give the new organization the organic act, so it never started. In the meantime, these scientists had no home, so, once it was clear the USGS was not to be eliminated under Newt's scheme, the director of the USGS offered to make a new division of the USGS for the biology folks. and thus was born the BRD part of the USGS.)<br /><br />Here's how GD scientists publish in non USGS publications. Perhaps unbeknownst to most non-USGS folks, the GD geologists have always had to get two "internal" reviews of their publications before publishing in any outside journal. (these days, this includes abstracts. Also, neither reviewer has to be from the USGS) After you respond to those reviews, you make your corrections, and give the whole package to your immediate supervisor. (If you use geologic names in the paper, then there is an additional review that makes sure that geologic names are used properly) The supervisor should look it over, see that appropriate responses are made, then 'sign off' on the manuscript. Then it gets sent to a publications group chief, who then says it gets 'directors approval'. Then, you are officially given permission to submit the manuscript wherever. It does slow down the publication process, but invariably these interval reviews improve the manuscript and the content. The goal is to make sure the USGS is not publishing crap. You might be surprised to learn that there are a manuscripts that die after these reviews. It's a big no no to publish without internal review. You'd get spanked. The internal reviewers are chosen by the author of the paper and not by a supervisor or some political appointee. In a smaller office like the one I'm in, you can end up using your same friend to review manuscripts too many times. And avoiding certain people who have terminal indigestion. And you can end up having rubber stamp reviews. But it's OK.<br /><br />I think the 'new' policy (I've not read it, but have been told) basically implements the GD internal review policy across all divisions of the USGS. I've heard the BRD scientists in my office (actually they are all located across town and we don't interact with them much) complain about this new policy. They see this as interfering. GD folks don't think this is an unnecessary burden. However, there have been instances of BRD people not having appropriate peer review when publishing things. There was one BRD pub that clearly had a biased slant toward caribou-pipeline interactions. The USGS really gets spanked in Washington when stuff like this happens. It's bad for everyone.<br /><br />It's funny Charles mentioned this. I saw Al Gore speak at lunch today at AGU. Gore actually mentioned this press report and the quote from James Estes, and Gore said he was horrified of the censorship. He mentioned the climate guy at NASA (Ames??) who had felt he had been censored as well. Gore's main point of the talk was that scientists need to tell the truth on what they know, even if it may be "an inconvenient truth." He pointed out that Galielo's conclusions about our solar system were also an inconvenient truth and that he published on it. It was important to get the truth out. <br /><br />I think partly in response to the NASA guy (I saw him on 60 minutes), we at the USGS were recently given more guidance about how to express personal opinions in the course of conveying our scientific results to the public. I think this is excellent, and I think it makes it much easier to give a personal opinion (often with policy implications). I do a fair amount of earthquake hazards work, and I get these questions all the time. I appreciate more freedom to speak on policy. I just need to be clear to the audience what is my USGS science versus what is my opinion as a citizen.<br /><br />I tried to find which division of the USGS that Estes is in from USGS internal web sites, but I can't find it easily. His research is all about charismatic megafauna, so I think it's likely he's in BRD and not GD. Nonetheless, Estes has published in Science and received meritorious service awards, so I doubt he would be slowed down much by the new rules.<br /><br />Regarding the last couple of things mentioned: is this high visibility science? or is this policy sensitive? I've seen those checkboxes on our manuscript routing sheets. The high visibility question is merely for the press people in the USGS to play up the science. NASA does so well in part because they have such a good press machine. The USGS tries to emulate that. I do find the question about 'policy sensitive' more troubling. But I'm not aware of that impacting anything.<br /><br />Regards, Peter</blockquote></i><br /><br /><br />I spent a couple years working with the Earthquake Hazards Team at the USGS (the team I was part of was in the GD). I actually thought that the internal review process was USGS-wide and not just for GD (although commenter mark on the RSR thread says the same procedure is used in WRD). I've been through the internal review process both as an author and as a reviewer, and I've found it very helpful. Its main purpose is to make sure that publications by USGS authors are of a high quality, not to hinder or censor data. The process is pretty straightforward. The author picks two reviewers (Haeussler says that they don't have to be USGS employees, which is news to me – all of the internal reviewers in the team I worked on were either USGS employees or volunteers, although we did hit up visiting scientists too). The interval review is just like standard peer review for a journal. The reviewer goes over the document and makes sure the data support the conclusions, that the format of the paper is decent, etc. The author then revises the manuscript and submits it to the Team Chief Scientist, who signs off on it. The TCS looks at the reviewers comments and the revised manuscript and if the reviewers' comments have been addressed the manuscript is approved (although the review by the TCS can be cursory). <br /><br />This process applies not only to papers but also to abstracts and newspaper articles. The review is pretty quick for abstracts, it usually doesn't take more than a day. As you can probably imagine, the days leading up to the AGU Fall Meeting abstract submission deadline are usually pretty busy. The review process for a paper is longer. It usually took a week or two, but it did take me a couple of months to get a paper back from a reviewer in one case (I expected that going in since he was really busy). <br /><br />The USGS internal review policy is available online <a href=" http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-3.html">here</a> and <a href=" http://www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502-4.html">here</a> (I should note that the date on these links is May 2006, so they might not be the final version). I've reproduced the section that deals with sensitive information below. From the second link:<br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />4. Policy. All information products (see SM 1100.1) must be reviewed and approved for official release and dissemination, whether they are published by the USGS or an outside entity, if the work has been funded, whole or in part, by the USGS or if USGS affiliation is identified with the authorship. Processes for review and approval may differ for different kinds of information products (print, digital, or audiovisual) but must be consistently applied throughout the USGS.<br /><br />If during preparation, review, or approval, an information product is determined to be of a particularly sensitive nature, the appropriate Bureau and Departmental officials should be consulted. Issues or concerns of a sensitive nature include those that have current or future policy implications (such as land and resource management decisions) or that involve matters of national interest, security, or potential commercial gain. Additionally, coordination and review should include the appropriate Office of Communications representative in instances of policy-sensitive products or those that may be of such a level of visibility that a communication strategy is warranted to handle their release.<br /><br />Information products should not recommend or appear to advocate or prescribe a particular public policy or course of action. Information products carry no disclaimer that could suggest that the product does not meet USGS standards of scientific excellence, integrity, and objectivity.</i></blockquote><br /><br />I don't see anything particularly ominous in this policy. I can understand why people would be concerned since scientists have been censored in the past, but I don't feel threatened by this policy. I hope I'm right.<br /><br />I'm going to end this post by looking in a case that was mentioned by both Peter Haeussler by <a href=" http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNews/2006/12/13/2788266-ap.html">CANOE</a>. Here's the relevant quote from the CANOE article:<br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />President George W. Bush's administration has been criticized for scientific integrity issues. In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected.</i></blockquote><br /><br />I think it's hard to characterize that paragraph as anything other than misleading. Here's a really nice <a href=" http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7474-2002Apr6?language=printer">article</a> from the Washington Post from 2002. <br /><br />Here is a <a href=" http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/">link</a> to the original report (section 3 is the relevant section) and here is a <a href=" http://www.usgs.gov/anwr/report.html">link</a> to the follow up memo. <br /><br />In 2002 a group headed by a USGS scientist published a report that dealt in part with the potential impact of the development of ANWR. This group had studied the caribou herds in that part of Alaska for 12 years and one of their findings was that female caribou who were either close to giving birth or had young calves tended to avoid roads and pipelines (they apparently preferred to be at least 4 km away from those features). That study reported that full development of 1002 area of ANWR (the area where the proposed drilling would occur) was likely to cause mortality rates of calves in the local caribou herd to decrease by 8.2%, and that a reduction of 4.6% was sufficient to cause growth of the herd to cease (Figure 3.28 in their report shows their data). The reason this caused a problem is that the scenario they used to arrive at their 8.2% calculation wasn't necessarily realistic since it was based on all of the 1002 area being developed and that wasn't necessarily realistic. Some development scenarios had plans with a much smaller footprint (you can see a map of all the plans in the follow up memo). The authors of the original study were taken to task for not including these plans in their report. The follow up memo included the predicted mortalities based on 2 more realistic drilling plans (the mortalities were estimated using exactly the same procedures as in the original report). The predicted mortalities for those two models were 0.7 and 1.2 %. The authors of the original report had in fact included models that didn't required full development (again you can see a map of their scenarios in the follow up memo), but they just focused on the 8.2 % figure (the worst case scenario). The USGS is not supposed to set or advocate policy although USGS authors can evaluate proposed scenarios, but they can't pick a favorite. The 2002 report crossed that line.<br /><br />In addition both the original 2002 report and the follow up memo are available on line so I think it's difficult to claim that the authors were censored.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1163117755308398142006-11-09T15:58:00.000-08:002006-11-09T16:15:55.620-08:00Photos and lecture preparationOne of the things about teaching that I'm coming to appreciate is the amount of time it takes to put a lecture together. I've put a fair number of talks together during my short career, but that's different than putting together three 50 minute lectures per week. I've been posting my lectures online so my students can download them and hopefully treasure and reread them for years to come (who knows, it could happen). I'm also trying to be respectful of copyrights. I've come across a few photo collections that have been very helpful:<br /><br /><a href="http://libraryphoto.cr.usgs.gov/index.html">USGS Photo LIbrary</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.blm.gov/aml/ew_photo.htm">BLM Abandoned Mine Lands (ALM)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.earthscienceworld.org/images/forteachers.html">Earth Science World Image Bank</a><br /><br /><a href="http://water.usgs.gov/wid/index-resources.html">USGS Fact Sheets</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/FieldImages.html">Photos by Bruce Railsback</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www-geoimages.berkeley.edu/GeoImages.html">The Geo-Images Project</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/">NOAA Photo Library</a><br /><br />If any readers know of other good collections I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1163116678101346332006-11-09T15:45:00.000-08:002006-11-09T15:57:58.530-08:00Blogs and the Department of the InteriorI got the chance to catch up with a friend who works for the USGS today. Since he's far more knowledgeable about stresses in the crust than I am I asked if he'd comment on my posts about the earthquake in Hawaii. He was willing, but apparently the DOI wasn't. When he tried to visit this blog he was redirected to a page that notified him that visiting blogs wasn't allowed (I suspect any URL with blogspot in it is flagged). He was kind enough to submit a request that The Western Geologist be added to an approved list of websites. We'll see what happens.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1162318116761663362006-10-31T09:58:00.000-08:002006-10-31T10:08:36.793-08:00Hooray for HubbleNASA announced today that they will send a shuttle mission to the Hubble Telescope in 2008 to give it some much-needed repairs. Without the repairs, failing components on the telescope would render it useless. The scheduled repairs will keep it operational through 2013. This is great news for scientists and astronomy buffs everywhere. To celebrate, I give you The Sombrero Galaxy in Infrared Light:<br /><br /><img src="http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2003/28/images/b/formats/large_web.jpg" /><br /><br />And for good measure, I'll include the Cat's Eye Nebula:<br /><br /><img src="http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2004/27/images/a/formats/large_web.jpg">Capt. Obsidianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12006137359140272626noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1161629555181877002006-10-23T11:17:00.000-07:002006-10-24T19:51:49.070-07:00A couple more thoughts on the Hawaii EarthquakeI blogged about the 10/15/2006 earthquake in Hawaii last week <a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-on-hawaii-earthquake.html">here</a> and <a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/earthquake-in-hawaii.html">here</a>.<br /><br />The image below shows the focal solutions for all of the earthquakes in the NEIC catalog. The focal solution for the Oct. 15 2006 event is shown in red.<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/hawaii_focal_mechanisms_lowres.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/hawaii_focal_mechanisms_lowres.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />The south end of the island seems pretty straight forward. All of the faults strike NE-SW. Thrust faults occur at depth (there's a rough transition at ~10 km, but the shallowest thrust event was 4 km), and normal faults occur above that. I'm picturing something like synorogenic collapse; Hawaii is a very thick pile of material and it's about as tall as it can be, so it makes sense to me that the upper part of that pile is extending. Extension would thin the pile making it more stable (something like the detachment in the upper part of the Himalayas).<br /><br />The northern part of the island where the Oct. 15 event occurred is more complex. There are two significant thrust events in that area, but they occurred on faults that strike NW-SE (EDIT: I forgot to mention that one of these thrust events was a Mw 5.8 aftershock of the Oct. 15 quake) , or in other words, at a very high angle to the thrusts at the southern part of the island. So, it seems pretty clear that the stress field that's causing the thrust faults on the northern part of the island is different from the stress field that's causing the thrusts on the southern part of the island.<br /><br />The orientation of the strike slip events in the northern part of the island isn't quite as easy to infer. There are two possibilities. The first is that the faults strike NE-SW (parallel to the faults on the southern part of the island and to the fracture zone that <a href="http://highlyallochthonous.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-caused-hawaiian-earthquake.html">Chris mentioned</a> - the blue line in the figure below). The second is that the faults strike NW-SE (as the lab lemming <a href="http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/10/hawaii-earthquake.html">suggested</a>, parallel to the thrust faults on the northern part of the island (the red lines in the figure below). I think that's more likely. If the strike slip faults strike NE-SW then there'd have to be an along-strike sense of motion (right lateral along part, left lateral along part), which seems physically unlikely. The lines in the figure below represent possible fault orientations inferred from the focal mechanisms: <br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/hawaii_fault_orientation_lowres.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/hawaii_fault_orientation_lowres.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />I also favor a NW-SE orientation for both the strike slip and the thrust faults at the northern part of the island because something similar is observed in other parts of the world. For example, there are active thrust faults that are parallel to the San Andreas fault (a strike slip fault). In that case the two styles of faulting are caused by the oblique convergence of the Pacific and North American plates, so the SAF system isn't directly analogous to Hawaii. However it is an example of two different styles of faulting resulting from the same regional stress field.<br /><br /><br />I want to speculate now about the cause of the stresses in the northern part of the island. The image below shows the orientation of the P axes from the focal mechanisms (which should be equivalent to the maximum principal stress):<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/Hawaii_P_axes_lowres.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/Hawaii_P_axes_lowres.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />The black symbols are for the southern portion of the island, and they cluster pretty tightly. There's certainly a lot more scatter in the northern portion of the island. So, the stress field in the northern part of the island is a lot more heterogeneous than in the southern part of the island.<br /><br />There does appear to be some overlap between the northern and the southern part of the island. The trend of the maximum principal stress for the Oct. 15 2006 quake is pretty similar to the trend of the maximum principal stress for the thrust events in the southern part of the island (shown below).<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/Hawaii_Rose_diagram_lowres.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/Hawaii_Rose_diagram_lowres.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />Here's a summary of my thoughts:<br /><br />1) The thrust faults on the southern part of the island are resulted to the growth of the island, while the shallower normal faults are caused by extension resulting from something analagous to synorogenic collapse.<br /><br />2) The stress field at the northern part of the island is much more heterogeneous than at the southern end of the island. As I discussed in an earlier message, I'd bet that the magnitude of the minimum and intermediate principal stresses at the northern end of the island are pretty similar. This means that both thrust and strike slip events would occur.<br /><br />3) Both the thrust and the strike slip faults at the northern part of the island are oriented NW-SE at a high angle to the faults at the southern part of the island.<br /><br />4) The northern part of the island is subjected to both local stresses related to the Hawaiian islands as well as more far field stresses associated with the movement of the Pacific plate. These far field stresses are swamped by the local stresses at the southern part of the island. <br /><br />Here's my preferred interpretation of the faults on Hawaii:<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/my_hawaii_fault_orientation_lowres.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/my_hawaii_fault_orientation_lowres.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />The NE-SW faults are associated with local stresses while the NW-SE faults are driven by both local and far field stresses. At least that's my best guess.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1161286551948011662006-10-19T12:32:00.000-07:002006-10-19T12:35:52.636-07:00Open access journalsFrom <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2006/10/directory_of_open_access_journ.php">Cognitive Daily</a> comes the <a href="http://www.doaj.org/">Directory of Open Access Journals</a>.<br /><br />They have 42 journals in their <a href="http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=78">geology section</a>. Worth a look.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1161182251591976782006-10-18T07:34:00.000-07:002006-10-18T07:37:31.620-07:00Which president are you most similar to?Here's my result. I think it was answering 'clam chowder' to the question about my favorite food that did it:<br /><br /><table width=350 align=center border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2><tr><td bgcolor="#DDDDDD" align=center><font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" style='color:black; font-size: 14pt;'><b>You Are Most Like John F. Kennedy</b></font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor="#EEEEEE"><center><img src="http://images.blogthings.com/whatmodernuspresidentareyoumostlikequiz/jfk.jpg" height="100" width="100"></center><font color="#000000"><br />You live a fairy tale life that most people envy.<br />And while you may have a few dark secrets, few people know them.</font></td></tr></table><div align="center"><a href="http://www.blogthings.com/whatmodernuspresidentareyoumostlikequiz/">What Modern US President Are You Most Like?</a></div><br /><br />HT to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2006/10/which_american_president_are_y.php">Living the Scientific Life</a>Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1161057030165375282006-10-16T20:46:00.000-07:002006-10-22T05:41:06.086-07:00More on the Hawaii earthquakeChris at <a href="http://highlyallochthonous.blogspot.com/2006/10/what-caused-hawaiian-earthquake.html#comments">Highly Allochthonous</a> has a very interesting post about the cause of the Hawaiian Earthquake. I made a quick comment there, and I want to expand a bit on it here.<br /><br />The <a href="http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2006/eq_061015_twbh/neic_twbh_q.html"> USGS fast moment tensor solution</a> for the Hawaii quake looks like a dominantly strike slip event.<br /><br />That seems weird to Chris, and it does to me too. I'd expect normal faulting to be the dominant mechanism resulting from extension (for the reasons that Chris describes). Before I go on I should point out that the <a href="http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2006/eq_061015_twbh/neic_twbh_q.html"> Harvard solution</a> looks more like a normal fault with a bit of strike slip motion. What that mean is that the following attempts to explain a strike slip earthquake in that part of Hawaii may be pointless. But oh well. I'm going to write the rest of this post assuming that the USGS focal mechanism is the better of the two.<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/Harvard_CMT.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/400/Harvard_CMT.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br /><br />Here's a quick map I put together of the Hawaii region (I wish I could plot the individual solutions but that's currently beyond my plotting skills). Earthquakes are from the Harvard CMT catalog (blue is thrust, red is normal, and green is strike slip). I think that these would be the best events to compare to the event on Sunday because the focal mechanisms for all of these event were inferred from teleseismic data (probably from a lot of the same stations). <br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/hawaii_quakes.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/400/hawaii_quakes.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />From that map it looks like thrust events are the most common at Hawaii. That seems a bit counterintuitive to me. That means that the least principle stress is horizontal and the greatest principle stress is horizontal (I'd expect just the opposite since, as Chris pointed out, the Hawaiian Islands are a big pile of rock on the crust – I'd expect them to be collapsing). Despite my misgivings, in terms of stress state switching from a stress state that favors thrust motion to a stress state that favors strike slip motion is pretty straightforward – the least principal stress needs to switch from vertical to horizontal with the greatest principal stress remaining horizontal. Basically the least and intermediate principal stresses need to switch. If they're close in magnitude to begin with then it won't take much for them to switch. I can only speculate about what the perturbation to the stress state was. Maybe motion of magma, stresses imparted from plastic flow in the mantle, or maybe through loading caused by failure along other faults in the time preceding the earthquake (slip on one fault can affect the stress state on neighboring faults). <br /><br />The map below is of seismicity from Jan. 1 to Oct. 14 2006:<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/hawaii_2.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/400/hawaii_2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />There were quite a few earthquakes, and there were some deep, moderate sized earthquakes (M 3.3-4.7) in the general vicinity of the Oct. 15 earthquake. Perhaps the least and the intermediate principal stresses were very similar in magnitude and those events perturbed the stress field enough to switch them changing the style of faulting (for that event) from thrust to strike slip (of course that's just speculation on my part).<br /><br />I want to finish with a comment on the greatest principal stress. The orientation of the greatest principal stress inferred from both the NEIC and the Harvard focal mechanisms is the same (~NW-SE). That orientation looks similar to the one I'd infer from the historic NEIC focal mechanisms. It's also similar to the stress orientation from the <a href="http://www-wsm.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/pub/maps/wsm2005_large.jpg">World Stress Map</a> (which was inferred using focal mechanisms in Hawaii). Since all these events have a common orientation for the greatest principal stress that indicates to me that they're the result of a similar stress field, with the difference being with the intermediate and least principal stresses. As I said above, if the intermediate and least principal stresses are similar in magnitude, then it wouldn't take much for them to switch. That's a long-winded way of saying that I don't think the stresses that caused the Oct. 15 event had to be radically different than the stresses that caused the more common thrust events.<br /><br />UPDATE: The lab lemming has a <a href="http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/10/hawaii-earthquake.html">new post</a> about the possible cause of this quake.<br /><br />UPDATE: Editing to correct spelling errors, 10/22/2006.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1161040979339608402006-10-16T16:19:00.000-07:002006-10-16T16:22:59.353-07:00Heavy rains in TexasThe part of Texas I live in has been getting hit with a lot of rain. Up to 10 inches in 24 hours. Fortunately our house in on high ground, but one of the two roads to it is not. There was a respectable lake across the road I normally take. Rain storms like this are going to take some getting used to.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1160947128779440482006-10-15T13:45:00.000-07:002006-10-15T14:18:53.396-07:00Earthquake in HawaiiA M 6.6 earthquake occurred in Hawaii today at 7:07 AM local time. The summary page from the NEIC is <a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/ustwbh.php#details"> here</a> and a page listing the main earthquake and many aftershocks (including an M 5.8 event) is <a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/205_20_eqs.php">here</a>.<br /><br />On the image below the M 6.6 earthquake is the star (you can see from the historic seismicity that Hawaii is a pretty active place):<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/neic_twbh_s.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/400/neic_twbh_s.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />Here's a map showing the activity today (all of the events are from Oct. 15 except for one from the 11th and one from the 10th):<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/205_20.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/400/205_20.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />The earthquake was 39 km deep, and from the moment tensor solution it was a strike slip event, which generally don't generate tsunami (there's not a lot of vertical displacement during a strike slip event so there's not a lot of water displaced):<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/neic_twbh_q.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/400/neic_twbh_q.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />Here's the shakemap for the event:<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/intensity-2.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/400/intensity-2.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />The most intense shaking was 6 on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale which means light potential damage for earthquake resistant structures (things like wood frame houses, modern buildings designed with earthquakes in mind and seismically retrofitted older structures) and moderate potential damage for vulnerable structures (unreinforced masonry, buildings with soft first stories, older buildings) . Here's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/15/hawaii.quake.ap/index.html">CNN's coverage.</a> According to them communications have been disrupted, but there are no reports of injuries or building damage. There were concerns about the structural integrity of a hospital there, and new patients were being kept outside. The most significant event CNN reports is an earthquake-related landslide near a major highway.<br /><br />For comparison the <a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/events/1868_04_03.php">largest historic event in Hawaii</a> was an M 7.9 event in 1868 that resulted in 77 deaths from an earthquake-induced landslide and a tsunami.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1160825967565772812006-10-14T04:36:00.000-07:002006-10-15T06:32:02.853-07:00Radioactive material detected from North KoreaSome new preliminary data about whether the North Korean blast was conventional or nuclear from the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/world/asia/14nuke.html?_r=2&oref=slogin">New York Times</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />"An analysis of air samples taken in the region on Wednesday found radioactive material that is “consistent with a North Korean nuclear test,” according to a document sent to lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Friday by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.<br /><br />But a senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the results were still preliminary and that final analysis of the data would not be completed for several days."</blockquote></i><br /><br />Hat tip to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/2006/10/north_korea_radiological_evide.php">Dynamics of Cats</a><br /><br />UPDATE: Posts at WG about the North Korea test:<br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/radioactive-material-detected-from.html">Radioactive material detected from North Korea</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/guest-blog-teachable-moment-north.html">Guestblog: Teachable Moment: North Korea nuclear test</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-recordings-of-nuclear-blasts.html">More recordings of nuclear blasts</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/north-korea-nuclear-test.html">North Korea nuclear test</a>Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1160758134569293992006-10-13T09:45:00.000-07:002006-10-15T06:32:31.903-07:00Guest blog: Teachable Moment: North Korea Nuclear TestA friend of mine in Japan had a great post abot the North Korean nuclear test at his blog. It's reproduced, with his permission, below:<br /><br />North Korea announced that they performed an underground nuclear test this week. This is obviously bad news no matter what, but how can we verify that they are telling the truth? That's where seismology can help!<br /><br />Scientists here at the Earthquake Research Institute just sent out information about the North Korea nuclear test, as recorded by seismometers here in Japan. <a href="http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/topics/20061009/">Take a peak at the seismograms here.</a><br /><br />Read more for a quick seismology lesson that explains what they mean.<br /><br />Here is a brief seismology lesson. Let's begin by looking at a regular, natural earthquake: <a href="http://rev.seis.sc.edu/earthquakes/2006/05/03/15/26/35?eq_dbid=57156">Click here to view some example seismograms</a>. Earthquakes are sudden releases of energy, a lot like explosions. The seismic waves they release travel through the earth and can be recorded by seismometers literally on the other side of the world. However, it takes time for the waves to travel this distance and some waves travel faster than others. The example link above shows recordings of ground shaking from a number of different recording stations around the globe. Time starts at the bottom in these images and goes up. The line starts out straight at the bottom and then there there is a sudden increase in energy (p-wave) represented by wiggles on the seismogram. Almost all the lines then show a second, larger, burst of energy a few minutes later (further up on the plot). This comes from slower traveling s-waves. It's a lot like a running race where everyone starts at the sound of the gun, but they arrive at the finish line over a certain period of time because some of them travel faster than others.<br /><br />What are these waves and why are some slow and others fast? Different directions of motion generate different types of waves. Imagine that I am standing behind you with my hands out in front of me and resting on your shoulders while we do a conga line. I can move my arms such that you rock side-to-side, or I can push-and-pull you forward and back in the direction that we are walking. Earthquakes mostly involve "shear motion" caused by sliding along faults (side-to-side motion). Some of you may have seen me use my hands to demonstrate earthquake motion by having one hand slide past the other. Explosions, however, have very little shear energy and produce mostly forward and back blast-like motion. It's easy to imagine getting thrown backwards by the energy of a blast (and fun to demonstrate an explosion with your hands -- they fly apart rather than slide past one another). In an earthquake, you'd more-likely get thrown to the side (relative to the direction of where the earthquake is coming) because earthquakes involve more side-to-side motion. It turns out that the different directions of motion travel through rock at different speeds. I won't go into the reasons why. But this is why there are two main bursts of energy in earthquakes -- the faster forward-and-back motion called P-waves and the slower side-to-side motion called S-waves.<br /><br />It's important to remember that even though earthquakes have more energy in side-to-side motion, they release energy in BOTH both p and s waves. Why? Even though earthquakes are caused by side-to-side motion along faults, ruptures have ends and there is pushing or pulling near these endpoints that generates some back-and-forth wave motion.<br /><br />Let's take another look at the nuclear test <a href="http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/topics/20061009/">seismograms</a>. In these, time starts on the left and marches to the right. Each horizontal line is the recording at one location in Japan. Here, there is a lot of background noise before the blast energy arrives, so the line is not perfectly straight on the left side. Most of this background noise is caused by storms and ocean waves and is not actually related to earthquakes or explosions. All of the recordings show a single big increase when the first, fastest waves arrive. Which horizontal line is closest to the blast? The top one because the waves arrive at it sooner. While shaking continues for some time in these seismograms, there is NO second burst. That's because this was an explosion that had very little side-to-side energy, and therefore no s-waves.<br /><br />Other aspects of the waveform can tell us where the nuclear test site was (the precise location in North Korea) and using some fancy math we can use the amplitude of the waves to calculate the yield of the explosive device. Now you are a trained seismologist and can recognize the difference between a natural earthquake and a nuclear blast. Let's hope you don't have to use this information any more...<br /><br />UPDATE: Posts at WG about the North Korea test<br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/radioactive-material-detected-from.html">Radioactive material detected from North Korea</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/guest-blog-teachable-moment-north.html">Guestblog: Teachable Moment: North Korea nuclear test</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-recordings-of-nuclear-blasts.html">More recordings of nuclear blasts</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/north-korea-nuclear-test.html">North Korea nuclear test</a>Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1160704416735621552006-10-12T18:02:00.000-07:002006-10-12T20:13:57.236-07:00Lee BollingerI'm definitley arriving late to the party, but I wanted to comment on the story of a group of students at Columbia University who stormed the stage during a speech by Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist.<br /><br />Here's a round-up of the coverage:<br /><br />From Dispatches from the Culture Wars:<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/10/columbia_presidents_response.php#more">here</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/10/left_wing_thugs_shut_down_spee.php#more">here</a><br /><br />From The Volokh Conspiracy:<br /><br /><a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_01-2006_10_07.shtml#1160179140">here</a> and <a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_10_01-2006_10_07.shtml#1160167251">here</a>.<br /><br />And finally, from No Se Nada:<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/10/columbias_free_speech_issues.php">here</a> (with a wonderful personal anecdote about Bollinger).<br /><br />I left a comment at No Se Nada, and I wanted to expand on it here.<br /><br />I spent a fair number of years at the University of Michigan and Lee Bollinger was president for a good chunk of that time. I remember a few incidents during Bollinger's tenure. <br /><br />In 2000 a group called the Students of Color Coalition (SCC) occupied the offices of a student society called Michigamua. Michigamua was founded in 1902 and was given a perputal lease to some offices in the student union in gratitude for their fund raising efforts. Some of the ceremonies in Michigamua involved Native American artifacts and references (mockeries?) of Native American culture. Michigamua agreed to stop using Native American artifacts in 1989, but according to SCC they didn't follow through on their promise (SCC also claimed that their name was offensive). SCC occupied Michigamua's offices and hung a banner out the window of the 3rd floor of the union (I don't remember what it said even though I saw it every day on my way to and from the bus). Here's a statement Bollinger <a href="http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9900/Feb21_00/4.htm">made in Feb. 2000</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><i>“For the past ten days, we have been engaged in discussions with students including the students occupying the tower of the Union. We do not believe that occupation is the way to resolve issues within the University. In this instance we felt that it was in the best interests of our educational process for the University to pursue that discussion to a reasonable resolution.<br /><br />“Any conversation must have starting points. For a University, a fundamental principle is that, with rare exceptions, students, faculty and staff must not be treated differently because of their beliefs or the expressions of those beliefs. That principle has direct application to this controversy. Some have argued that one of the societies using the Union tower space, Michigamua, should be stripped of its University affiliation and lose its exclusive use of that space because it has a history of practices that demean and degrade Native American culture and spirituality. Under our principles it is clear that student organizations must not be recognized or de-recognized, or suffer any other penalty, because the ideas they espouse or beliefs they adhere to are offensive, or even dangerous, to our community. I have spoken to leaders of the groups occupying the tower, other students and faculty, and they, too, value this principle.<br /><br />“Neither viewpoints nor legacy necessarily entitle any group within the campus to privileged space. We will address, in a neutral way, the process of space allocation among student organizations within the University.<br /><br />“It must be said, again and again, that responsible membership in our University community implies caring about the perceived impact of one’s actions on others. Of particular importance are perceptions, however unintended, of cultural offense, and those behaviors that cause others in the community to be excluded and unappreciated. Whether conscious or not, practices that negatively stereotype groups in our society cause unjust pain and humiliation. I believe such practices are not acceptable behaviors in a University that values and fosters diversity. We must never take lightly the effects of such perceptions and behaviors.<br /><br />“Current students of Michigamua acknowledge that its history has included practices demeaning of Native American culture. None of us, however, can count ourselves free of embarrassment and even shame for what we have once believed or practiced, not even the University of Michigan.<br /><br />“Our students are continually reminding us of the challenge embedded in Pascal’s enduring words, inscribed on the walls of our University, ‘Justice and power must be brought together so that whatever is just may be powerful and whatever is powerful must be just.’ ”</blockquote></i><br /><br />He agreed that demeaning Native American culture is inappropriate, admonished SCC for occupying the office, and didn't take the easy out of condemning the present members of Michigamua for the behavior of past members.<br /><br />Here's his statement from <a href="http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Mar00/r031300c.html"> March of 2000</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote><i>"As I stressed in my Statement of February 17, 2000, "practices that negatively stereotype groups in our society cause unjust pain and humiliation. I believe such practices are not acceptable behaviors in a University that values and fosters diversity. We must never take lightly the effects of such perceptions and behaviors." While this University honors the principle that individuals and groups within the University community must be free to express a wide variety of beliefs and ideas, it is also committed to ensuring that its own institutional voice on the subject of racial and ethnic respect be unequivocal. The University simply does not condone practices that denigrate the values or traditions of particular racial or ethnic groups. Finally, it must also be said that the University does not condone the illegal occupation of University premises by any student group.<br /><br />The recent protests about the Michigamua student organization have raised an important question as to the proper nature and scope of University involvement with student organizations. Accordingly, the panel described in my Statement of February 25, 2000 that is considering the question of privileged space also will consider under what circumstances and in what ways the University, its administrators and faculty members should be associated with such organizations and it will recommend guiding principles in this regard. The University's Executive Officers and I will then decide whether and how to implement such principles.<br /><br />In considering this issue, the panel will consider the concerns that have been expressed about whether and to what extent associations between the University, its administrators or faculty can or have given rise to the impression that the University endorses racial or ethnic ridicule, and whether and to what extent those associations can or have contributed to marginalizing or disenfranchising other groups or students. The panel will also consider applicable civil rights and anti-discrimination principles as well as applicable First Amendment principles such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.<br /><br />As with the question of privileged space, the panel will gather public input in a variety of ways including holding public hearings to solicit student, staff, faculty and community member input. The panel will work expeditiously and make its recommendations regarding space before April 13, 2000. The panel will make its recommendation on all other issues before it by October 2, 2000. The decisions the University makes about the assignment and use of the Michigan Union tower and any other exclusively assigned space will be made prior to the beginning of the Fall 2000 academic term. The panel will issue its findings and recommendations on all questions before it in written form, and those findings and recommendations will be published to all interested parties and the public."</blockquote></i><br /><br />In the end Michigamua got to keep their name, but agreed to move out of the Union. Their website is <a href="http://www.michigamua.org/index.html">here</a>.<br /><br />I remember a few other incidents. When the U of M affirmitive action case was just starting there was a flurry of activity on campus. Two of the speakers stick in my mind. Jesse Jackson came to give a talk in favor of affirmitive action (I save one of his placards - I rediscovered it while I was moving out of my office at the end of grad school). Fred Phelps and his group came to protest. I vividly remember an ~five year old boy holding a sign proclaiming "Matthew Shepard is burning in Hell." Despite the disgusting nature of Phelps' group they were allowed to protest unmolested. I also remember a preacher who'd hold up a sign on the Diag and comdemn passing students to an eternity of fire (I know that this was at least a weekly event but I don't remember if he did this more often). He was occasionally heckled, but he was never stopped from speaking. During the 2000 elections the campus Republicans had a table set up on the Diag, and they were even able to hand out collections of G. W. Bush's speeches (I got a copy and had a lot of fun sneaking it on to my friend's bookshelves and seeing how long it took them to notice). I also remember an instance when a group of abortion protestors rented a truck and drove it around campus with pictures of aborted fetuses. <br /><br />The average person at Michigan was certainly liberal, but it was a place where free speech was encouraged (at least in my experience). Returning to the modern day I was very pleased with Bollinger's <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/president/communications%20files/freedomofspeech.htm"> statment</a> about the protestors at Columbia University (excerpted below):<br /><br /><blockquote><i>"Of course, the University is thoroughly investigating the incident, and it is critically important not to prejudge the outcome of that inquiry with respect to individuals. But, as we made clear in our University statements on both Wednesday night and Thursday, we must speak out to deplore a disruption that threatens the central principle to which we are institutionally dedicated, namely to respect the rights of others to express their views.<br /><br />This is not complicated: Students and faculty have rights to invite speakers to the campus. Others have rights to hear them. Those who wish to protest have rights to do so. No one, however, shall have the right or the power to use the cover of protest to silence speakers. This is a sacrosanct and inviolable principle.<br /><br />It is unacceptable to seek to deprive another person of his or her right of expression through actions such as taking a stage and interrupting the speech. We rightly have a visceral rejection of this behavior, because we all sense how easy it is to slide from our collective commitment to the hard work of intellectual confrontation to the easy path of physical brutishness. When the latter happens, we know instinctively we are all threatened."</blockquote></i><br /><br />The students who stormed the stage were thugs, plain and simple, and they deserve to be prosecuted.<br /><br />Ending on a lighter note The Daily Show covered the event <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Stewart_rips_Minutemen_protesters_for_1011.html">here</a> (hat tip to The Volokh Conspiracy). The best line of the clip is (paraphrasing): "Congratulations protestors, you've managed to make Sean Hannity seem like the reasonable one."Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1160622215222105592006-10-11T19:45:00.000-07:002006-10-11T20:03:35.336-07:00A good day for meI'm currently a visiting assistant professor. I found out today that I'll be promoted to a tenure track position at the beginning of the next academic year. I also found out that I'll be able to purchase a piece of equipment that I've been wanting for some time (a hand held XRF machine). I've got three projects that have been on hold that I can finish now.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1160621078750738942006-10-11T19:22:00.000-07:002006-10-15T06:33:13.176-07:00More recordings of nuclear blastsFrom the Oklahoma Geological Survey:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/level2/nuke.cat.index.html">A 700-1800 kiloton blast from 1992</a>. The largest underground blast since 1976 according to that site. The station was 11420 km from the blast.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/level2/nuke.grams/n920521.time.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/level2/nuke.grams/n920521.time.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />For comparison the <a href="http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/level2/ok.grams/T950116.html">1995 M6.9 Kobe earthquake</a> (10600 km from the station and 22 km deep). (note that this seismogram is ~1 hr long while the seismogram from the nuclear blast is only ~20 minutes long).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/level2/ok.grams/T950116.html"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/level2/ok.grams/T950116.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />As I learned in the comments from thread at No Se Nada a sesimogram from a blast is dominated by P-waves. I can certainly see the lack of S waves in the recording from the nuclear blast (assuming they were cut from the plot). <br /><br />Here's an explanation from LLNL:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Livermore seismologist Bill Walter explains that the differences in seismic P- and S-wave energy provide one method of discriminating explosions from earthquakes. Seismic P waves are compressional waves, similar to sound waves in the air. Shear (S) waves are transverse waves, like those that propagate along a rope when one end is shaken. Because underground explosions are spherically symmetric disturbances, they radiate seismic P waves efficiently. In contrast, earthquakes result from sliding or rupture along a buried fault surface and strongly excite the transverse motions of S waves. Thus, we expect that explosions will show strong P waves and weak S waves and that earthquakes will show weak P waves and strong S waves, as seen in Figure 2."</blockquote><br /><br />Here's the figure referred to in that quote:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.llnl.gov/str/gifs/Walter2.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://www.llnl.gov/str/gifs/Walter2.gif" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />The LLNL page also has a good discussion of the difficulties in inferring blast yields from seismograms.<br /><br />UPDATE: I forgot to give a <a href="http://www.llnl.gov/str/Walter.html">link</a> to the LLNL page.<br /><br />UPDATE: Lab Lemming has a couple<a href="http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-tell-earthquake-from-nuclear.html">nice</a> <a href="http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2006/10/seismology-of-nuclear-test.html">posts</a> on this topic.<br /><br />UPDATE: Posts about the North Korea nuclear test at WG:<br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/radioactive-material-detected-from.html">Radioactive material detected from North Korea</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/guest-blog-teachable-moment-north.html">Guestblog: Teachable Moment: North Korea nuclear test</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-recordings-of-nuclear-blasts.html">More recordings of nuclear blasts</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/north-korea-nuclear-test.html">North Korea nuclear test</a>Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1160448051301091592006-10-09T18:58:00.000-07:002006-10-15T06:33:44.340-07:00North Korea nuclear testThe North Koreans conducted an underground detonation of a nuclear bomb today.<br /><br />These are the seismograms of the nuclear test in North Korea (data from the <a href="http://www.iris.edu/news/special.htm"> IRIS website</a>.<br /><br />The first shows the raw data:<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/North%20Korea%20no%20filter.0.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/North%20Korea%20no%20filter.0.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />This image shows the same data with a regional filter applied (1-10 Hz). I don't know the rationale for applying this filter, but it looks like that's the way IRIS displays their data (can you tell I'm not a seismologist?).<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/North%20Korea%20regional%20filter%20%28BP%201-10%20Hz%29.0.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/North%20Korea%20regional%20filter%20%28BP%201-10%20Hz%29.0.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />For comparison here are the records from the same stations for a M5.9 event at a depth of 359.5 km in the Sea of Japan (both stations were further from this earthquake than they were from the North Korean test).<br /><br />This is a plot without a filter.<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/Sea_of_Japan_no_filter.0.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/Sea_of_Japan_no_filter.0.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />This is a plot with a filter.<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/Sea_of_Japan_regional_filter.0.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/Sea_of_Japan_regional_filter.0.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />Here's another earthquake for comparison. This one is a M 5.5 event at a depth of 71.6 km that occured near Kyushu.<br /><br />No filter.<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/Kyushu_no_filter.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/Kyushu_no_filter.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />Filter.<br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/Kyushu_regional_filter.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/320/Kyushu_regional_filter.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />I'm not sure how to distinguish between a nuclear blast and an earthquake. To my untrained eye it looks like the North Korean event is more impulsive (for lack of a better word) than the Sea of Japan event. However the North Korea event looks similar to the Kyushu event to me (of course the Kyushu event is much closer in depth to the North Korea event too). I see some differences in the later arrivals, but I don't know if I'm just seeing things.<br /><br />UPDATES<br /><br />I forgot to link to the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/10/north_korea_test_seismogram_re.php">post at No Se Nada</a> that prompted me to look for the seismograms for the North Korean test.<br /><br /><a href="http://highlyallochthonous.blogspot.com/2006/10/north-korean-nuclear-test.html">Highly Allochthonous</a> (great name) also has a post.<br /><br />UPDATE: Posts at WG about the North Korea nuclear test:<br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/radioactive-material-detected-from.html">Radioactive material detected from North Korea</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/guest-blog-teachable-moment-north.html">Guestblog: Teachable Moment: North Korea nuclear test</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-recordings-of-nuclear-blasts.html">More recordings of nuclear blasts</a><br /><br /><a href="http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006/10/north-korea-nuclear-test.html">North Korea nuclear test</a>Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1158806010300958282006-09-20T19:25:00.000-07:002006-09-20T19:33:30.303-07:00Gubernatorial candiate in Michigan endorses intelligent designFrom the <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060920/NEWS99/60920015">Detroit Free Press</a><br /><br /><blockquote><i>Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos says he thinks Michigan’s science curriculum should include a discussion about intelligent design.<br /><br />He says teaching intelligent design along with evolution would help students discern the facts among different theories. He’d like to see local school districts be able to teach intelligent design if they choose to, although he wouldn’t require that it be taught in science classes.<br /><br />“I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory,” DeVos told the Associated Press this week during an interview on education. “That theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less.”</blockquote></i><br /><br />Since DeVos didn't say anything new I'm not going to bother pointing out the problems with his statement. I will say that he's not my favorite Republican gubernatorial candidate. My favorite was Dick Posthumus, who lost to Jennifer Granholm. The reason I like him so much is that when he was running for governor I got to drive past a huge sign that proclaimed "Support Posthumus' Tax Cuts" on my way to work I thought it was nice to see a candidate reaching out to an under-represented voting group (I know his last name is Posthumus and not posthumous, but the sign still made me laugh).Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1158805492568139412006-09-20T19:19:00.000-07:002006-09-20T19:24:52.580-07:00"Ornery scientist gets rehired by federal gov't"From <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060919/geologist_reinstated_060919/20060919?hub=Politics"> CTV</a> in Canada.<br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />A B.C. scientist fired for lampooning an order to call Stephen Harper's Tory government "Canada's new government'' is back on the job.<br /><br />Geologist Andrew Okulitch said Tuesday he was reinstated as a scientist emeritus with the Geological Survey of Canada after a call from the deputy minister of natural resources.<br /><br />The 64-year-old Saltspring Island resident, who has worked for the federal government for 35 years, said he was fired Sept. 5 after he e-mailed an undiplomatic response to a government directive.<br /><br />The government memo ordered him to use the phrase "new government of Canada'' on official correspondence from the Geological Survey of Canada.<br /><br />Okulitch immediately fired off an e-mail saying civil servants are not paid to mouth political slogans.<br /><br />He said the policy was "ridiculous and embarrassing'' and said he will use Geological Survey of Canada in any official correspondence "as opposed to idiotic buzzwords coined by political hacks.''</blockquote></i><br /><br />All turned out well in the end. Both Okulitch and the deputy minister both apologized and Okulitch got back to work.Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1158325143960693852006-09-15T05:58:00.000-07:002006-09-15T05:59:34.346-07:00FCC FUAt the very least you'll get a catchy song stuck in your head (or at least I did)<br /><br /><a href="http://fccfu.com/">http://fccfu.com/</a>Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19977167.post-1157978019231618812006-09-11T07:28:00.000-07:002006-09-11T05:33:39.243-07:00<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/1600/ff_flag1.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7541/1988/400/ff_flag1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Western geologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026377278800982918noreply@blogger.com0