A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 9:18 PM GMT on June 21, 2011

Share this Blog
4
+

A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)

In the previous entry I set out the need of a scientific organization; that is, an organization that is designed and run to honor the tenets of the scientific method. This stands in contrast to, say, a laboratory or a center that is populated by scientists carrying out a multitude of projects, each following the scientific method. One motivation for the scientific organization is the steady stream of reports from the past two decades calling for better integration of U.S. climate activities to provide predictions to meet societal needs. At the foundation of my argument is that the way we teach, fund and reward scientific investigation has been, traditionally, fragmenting. Without addressing this underlying fragmentation, there are high barriers to achieving the needed integration. (see, Something New in the Past Decade?, The Scientific Organization, High-end Climate Science).

What does it take for an organization to adhere to the scientific method? Ultimately, I will arrive at the conclusion that it takes a diligence of management and governance, but for this entry I will continue to focus on the elements of the scientific method, and specifically the development of strategies to evaluate and validate collected, rather than individual, results.

In May I attended a seminar by David Stainforth. Stainforth is one of the principles in the community project climateprediction.net. From their website, “Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth's climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models.” In this project people download a climate model and run the model on their personal computers, then the results are communicated back to data center where they are analyzed in concert with results from many other people.

This is one example of community science or citizen science. Other citizen science programs are Project Budburst and the Globe Program. There are a number of reasons for projects like this. One of the reasons is to extend the reach of observations. In Project Budburst people across the U.S. observe the onset of spring as indicated by different plants – when do leaves and blossoms emerge? A scientific motivation for doing this is to increase the number observations to try to assure that the Earth's variability is adequately observed – to develop statistical significance. In these citizen science programs people are taught how to observe - a protocol is developed.

Education – that is another goal of these citizen science activities, education about the scientific method. In order to follow the scientific process, we need to know the characteristics of the observations. If, as in Project Budburst, we are looking for the onset of leafing, then we need to make sure that the tree is not sitting next to a warm building or in the building’s atrium. Perhaps, there is a requirement of a measurement, for example, that the buds on a particular type of tree have expanded to a certain size or burst in some discernible way. Quantitative measurement and adherence of practices of measurement are at the foundation of developing a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment is one where we try to investigate only one thing at a time; this is a difficult task in climate science. If we are not careful about our observations and the design of our experiments, then it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to evaluate our hypotheses and arrive at conclusions. And the ability to test hypotheses is fundamental to the scientific method. Design, observations, hypothesis, evaluation, validation – in a scientific organization these things need to be done by the organization, not each individual.

Let’s return to climateprediction.net. A major goal is to obtain a lot of simulations from climate models to examine the range of variability that we might expect in 2100. The strategy is to place relatively simple models in the hands of a whole lot of people. With this strategy it is possible to do many more experiments than say one scientist or even a small team of scientists can do. Many 100,000s of simulations have been completed.

One of the many challenges faced in the model-based experiments is how to manage the model simulations to provide controlled experiments. If you think about a climate model as a whole, then there are a number of things that can be changed. We can change something “inside” of the model, for example, we can change how rough we estimate the Earth’s surface to be – maybe grassland versus forest. We can change something “outside” of the model - the energy balance, perhaps, some estimate of how the Sun varies or how carbon dioxide will change. And, still “outside” the model, we can change the details of what the climate looks like when the model simulation is started – do we start it with January 2003 data or July 2007? When you download a model from climateprediction.net, it has a unique set of these parameters. If you do a second experiment, this will also have a unique set of parameters. Managing these model configurations and documenting this information allows, well, 100000s of simulations to be run, with a systematic exploration of model variability. Experiment strategy is explained here.

What impressed me about climateprediction.net is the ability to design and execute a volunteer organization that allows rigorous investigation with of a group of thousands of people on thousands of different computers distributed all over the globe. Protocols have been set up to verify that the results are what they should be; there is confidence in the accuracy of the information collected. Here is an example where scientists are able to define an organization where the scientific method permeates the organization. Is this proof that a formalized scientific organization is possible? What are the attributes that contribute to the success of a project like climateprediction.net? Are they relevant to a U.S. climate laboratory?

Bringing this back to the scale of U.S. climate activities – in 2008 there was a Policy Forum in Science Magazine by Mark Schaefer, Jim Baker and a distinguished number of co-authors. All of these co-authors had worked at high levels in the government, and they all struggled with the desire and need to integrate U.S. climate activities. Based on their experience they posed an Earth System Science Agency made from a combined USGS and NOAA. In their article they pointed out: “The synergies among our research and monitoring programs, both space- and ground-based, are not being exploited effectively because they are not planned and implemented in an integrated fashion. Our problems include inadequate organizational structure, ineffective interagency collaboration, declines in funding, and blurred authority for program planning and implementation.” Planning and implementation in an integrated fashion, I will add – consistent with the scientific method – that is what is needed for a successful scientific investigation by an individual; it is needed to make climateprediction.net substantive; it is needed for any climate organization that is expected, as a whole, to provide integrated climate information.

r




Figure 1: Location of participants in climateprediction.net. From the BBC, a sponsor of the experiment.


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 634 - 584

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

the Earth's core is like a disco inferno...

might as well do The Hustle and enjoy the ride...

as I stated previously, how arrogant are we to think that man will be on the earth forever? Tell that to the dinosaurs.... and the mastedons and saber toothed cats....

creatures have come and gone, with no help from man....

maybe it's man's turn to go as well...

bring on the Ancient Aliens.....
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting Neapolitan:

You mean how many do I have on ignore? Four at the moment: Karnakowy, seasonbust2011, BigJ2011, REALMASTER3. The first is a person who kept posting spammy comments filled with IP trackers; the rest are, I believe, variants of JFV. I can ignore the commenter without having him or her on ignore, you know.

Now, out of my own curiosity, why do you ask?


i just wanted to see if you had me on ignore

hey I think youre a great component to this whole chicken or the egg debate.

it can be a spitting contest sometimes, but i think, in general, debate on topics such as these keeps the truth from hiding under the coral.

thank you for being honest and good luck on all of our quests for the truth

because I have a funny feeling the truth will never be concluded. we just dont have enough time as a species. the random chaos of the universe keeps the game moving and always changes the rules without warning
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What was the other blanket that caused that?

i dont know buster, no one does. life did not exist yet but ice did and water and whatnot.

but who knows, maybe phytoplankton evolved at a rapid rate and 500 million years ago they somehow burned things to cloud the planet. i mean that sounds like what pro-GW people think we're doing today.

in reality, all it takes is one good super volcano to blow its stack or a nice sized space rock to impact and we're all toast

for a little while at least. life has bounced back from some pretty violent times its theorized.

but you know what. 500 million years ago ice melted on earth. 200 million years ago ice melted on earth. last tuesday ice melted on earth.

the most scientific conclusion I can make is, ice seems to melt on earth. as long as its core remains molten.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Everyone should have an opportunity, right?


That's very true.
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting PurpleDrank:
how many people have you ignored Neaop? just curious

You mean how many do I have on ignore? Four at the moment: Karnakowy, seasonbust2011, BigJ2011, REALMASTER3. The first is a person who kept posting spammy comments filled with IP trackers; the rest are, I believe, variants of JFV. I can ignore the commenter without having him or her on ignore, you know.

Now, out of my own curiosity, why do you ask?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Everyone should have an opportunity, right?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
hahahahaha!! The Tussin addict goes to the head of the class!! Priceless!!!
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting PurpleDrank:
when every study in science is government funded it is not science

it might as well be the will of the church 1000 years ago

and how do you cripple private studies?

you necessarily cause their cost of operation to rise.

just like a dominant corporate entity and more, the government can and does deny science from the truth

its the same thing over and over again

curb thought and progress to preach change but in reality keep the system the same to stay in power

two sides of a coin showing but there's much more in the middle of each of the two outter surfaces

A for you. You sir may now precede to the head of the class.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Superman gets his power from our sun = Superman is causing Global Warming...

end of story...

Al Gore needs to suspend his search for ManBearPig and start the hunt for Superman....
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting spathy:


Hasnt it been concluded that oscillations are causing Arctic warming?

And those oscillations are in the process of reversing?

Link


I don't see where World oceans are cooling globally do you? LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
when every study in science is government funded it is not science

it might as well be the will of the church 1000 years ago

and how do you cripple private studies?

you necessarily cause their cost of operation to rise.

just like a dominant corporate entity and more, the government can and does deny science from the truth

its the same thing over and over again

curb thought and progress to preach change but in reality keep the system the same to stay in power

two sides of a coin showing but there's much more in the middle of each of the two outter surfaces
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spathy:


Hasnt it been concluded that oscillations are causing Arctic warming?

And those oscillations are in the process of reversing?

Link

Didn't see that. Gonna get these BBQ ribs on the old grill outside and then sit down and take a look at that.

However, I did hear something to that effect...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PurpleDrank:
and that does not go for periods in earth's history where the entire surface was encased in a layer of ice.

which it has a few times in its history, or at least that's what crazy geologists say

ofcourse those periods happened when there was 100 times less co2 in the atmosphere

who do you believe more?

crazy dreamers of the past

or

govment backed prophets of the future

or superman


What was the other blanket that caused that?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting PurpleDrank:
and that does not go for periods in earth's history where the entire surface was encased in a layer of ice.

which it has a few times in its history, or at least that's what crazy geologists say

ofcourse those periods happened when there was 100 times less co2 in the atmosphere

who do you believe more?

crazy dreamers of the past

or

govment backed prophets of the future

or superman

Somehow I'm under the impression Superman was a lot more at ease before FL stole all the palm trees from Greenland.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
and that does not go for periods in earth's history where the entire surface was encased in a layer of ice.

which it has a few times in its history, or at least that's what crazy geologists say

ofcourse those periods happened when there was 100 times less co2 in the atmosphere

who do you believe more?

crazy dreamers of the past

or

govment backed prophets of the future

or superman
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

superman knows this


that's because he's an Ancient Illegal Alien....
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Great!

When you figure out a way to produce energy for 6 billion people, let me know!


OK here: Get you one.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
i'll make it even more scientific for you

if superman were to put a mountain-sized piece of ice in orbit around the moon, and somehow kept it in orbit, it would not melt.

but if he let it sit in greenland it would definetly melt.

because no ice, in our species history, has ever NOT MELTED in greenland. ever.

superman knows this
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PurpleDrank:
precisely my point

all ice on earth is resting on a surface above a molten core

ice isnt supposed to melt

ice didnt melt on this planet until some evil genius started using fossilized wood to keep his stone oven hotter thru the nights

and then when some german guy invented a combustion engine, ice pretty much was doomed.

as if that molten iron and nickel core 260 miles down aint enuff..or that ever burning 8 billion year old mass of gas 93 million miles away.

its like paper rock and scissors

ice beats sun
man beats ice
sun beats man

duhh

The sun is king.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Combination of. However, we must eliminate the part we add to the warming. Once we do then we can get back to pre-industrial revolution temperatures in a couple of decades.

Great!

When you figure out a way to produce energy for 6 billion people, let me know!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PurpleDrank:
precisely my point

all ice on earth is resting on a surface above a molten core

ice isnt supposed to melt

ice didnt melt on this planet until some evil genius started using fossilized wood to keep his stone oven hotter thru the nights

and then when some german guy invented a combustion engine, ice pretty much was doomed.

as if that molten iron and nickel core 260 miles down aint enuff..or that ever burning 8 billion year old mass of gas 93 million miles away.

its like paper rock and scissors

ice beats sun
man beats ice
sun beats man

duhh


It's not just the North Arctic either!



Duhh! NASA image BTW!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Where exactly is the bold part that has a * that says: "part or all of this is because of anthropogenic affects". Help me out will ya Cyclone. Think it's time for an eye exam here.

Wait, you're not implying that this is just yet another brief warm period that preceded the 1970's, are you? No. I really wanna be a believer.

What's you take? Man-made? Some? Little? None?


Combination of. However, we must eliminate the part we add to the warming. Once we do then we can get back to pre-industrial revolution temperatures in a couple of decades.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
precisely my point

all ice on earth is resting on a surface above a molten core

ice isnt supposed to melt

ice didnt melt on this planet until some evil genius started using fossilized wood to keep his stone oven hotter thru the nights

and then when some german guy invented a combustion engine, ice pretty much was doomed.

as if that molten iron and nickel core 260 miles down aint enuff..or that ever burning 8 billion year old mass of gas 93 million miles away.

its like paper rock and scissors

ice beats sun
man beats ice
sun beats man

duhh
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


OUCH! COL!
Not just Greenland is it?



Duhh!

Where exactly is the bold part that has a * that says: "part or all of this is because of anthropogenic affects". Help me out will ya Cyclone. Think it's time for an eye exam here.

Wait, you're not implying that this is just yet another brief warm period that preceded the 1970's, are you? No. I really wanna be a believer.

What's you take? Man-made? Some? Little? None?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PurpleDrank:
theres a lot of ice in greenland

naturally thats a good spot to theorize wild plantetary phenominon, right?

heck thats why it was named greenland

because its covered with ice, right?

i guess at that lattitude ice is green in color

and when has greenland ever gained any large deposits of ice?

how come there isnt evidence of glaciers rising and getting bigger?

could it be, maybe, that ice always melts in greenland?

or is that just a coincidence?

besides, if its true that 30-10000 years ago the earth was in an ice age..then could it be 10years ago to 20000 years in the future we'll see ice friggin melt, always and anywhere?

nah..its all those coal fired steam turbines and trucks and cars and jetplanes. ice aint supposed to melt on a molten iron and nickel cored space marble.

duhh


OUCH! COL!
Not just Greenland is it?



Duhh!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
theres a lot of ice in greenland

naturally thats a good spot to theorize wild plantetary phenominon, right?

heck thats why it was named greenland

because its covered with ice, right?

i guess at that lattitude ice is green in color

and when has greenland ever gained any large deposits of ice?

how come there isnt evidence of glaciers rising and getting bigger?

could it be, maybe, that ice always melts in greenland?

or is that just a coincidence?

besides, if its true that 30-10000 years ago the earth was in an ice age..then could it be 10years ago to 20000 years in the future we'll see ice friggin melt, always and anywhere?

nah..its all those coal fired steam turbines and trucks and cars and jetplanes. ice aint supposed to melt on a molten iron and nickel cored space marble.

duhh
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
maybe im being ignored and he cant see my question

hmmm

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OUCH!



Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
Greenland ice melts most in half-century: US

(AFP) – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON — Greenland's ice sheet melted the most it has in over a half century last year, US government scientists said Tuesday in one of a series of "unmistakable" signs of climate change.

"The world continues to warm," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a briefing paper for reporters.

"Multiple indicators, same bottom-line conclusion: consistent and unmistakable signal from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the oceans."

An annual climate survey, which includes work by scientists from 45 countries, said that ice sheet in Greenland melted at its highest rate since at least 1958, when similar data first became available.

Arctic sea ice shrank to its third smallest area on record, while the world's alpine glaciers shrank for the 20th straight year, the study said.

In line with previous studies, the survey said that 2010 was also one of the hottest years on record.

Last year was either tied for the hottest or the second hottest on record, depending on methodology. But all methodologies used showed the temperature to be at least 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 Celsius) above the average recorded in the three decades through 1990.

The survey noted that 2010 was exceptional for its extreme events, including a deadly heat wave in Russia, floods in Pakistan that displaced more than 20 million people and record snowfall in several US cities.

A series of studies have voiced alarm at the rapid pace of melting in the Arctic Ocean, which could lead to a rise in sea levels that threatens low-lying coastal areas and islands.

The Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program said in May that warming in the Arctic was on track to lift sea levels by up to 5.3 feet (1.6 meters) by 2100, a far steeper jump than predicted a few years ago.

Many environmentalists have been disappointed at the pace of diplomacy to fight climate change, with few expecting a major agreement at the next major UN-led talks opening in South Africa in late November.

Former US vice president Al Gore recently accused President Barack Obama of failing to show leadership on climate change, saying that poor coverage of the media had given credibility to skeptics of global warming.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413

586. PurpleDrank 9:33 PM GMT on July 01, 2011










how many people have you ignored Neaop? just curious

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:
I agree with NRAamy; well said.

Edit: Disagree w/ McB


Imagine that McBill's post is deleted within seconds of it being posted.

I read what it was.
Member Since: May 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
Quoting NRAamy:
Neap....


The issue with me is this: Yes, you have a lot of knowledge, more than the average bear. We all get that.

But it's your smug, patronizing attitude towards the others in here that turns people off.

You catch more flies with honey than vineagar, correct? Why not try to impart some of your knowledge with a kinder approach? If you truly want people to change their minds and habits in regards to Climate Change, you think that maybe, just maybe, you could stop being such a d-bag, just for once? Dude, I'm not being funny here...I am being totally serious.... PLEASE stop and think about how you interact with others.... a little kindness goes a long way.... I have seen people debate with class and consideration on here.....why not give it a try?

+1.

"It's not what you say, it's how you say it"...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Smart judge here.



Judge rules polar bears still 'threatened'

A U.S. District Court on Thursday upheld a Bush-era decision that polar bears are a threatened species, despite challenges by the state of Alaska and others seeking to strip the bear of its protection.

Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to protect the bear because of the melting of the Arctic sea ice was well supported and that opponents failed to demonstrate that the listing was irrational.

“Plaintiffs’ challenges amount to nothing more than competing views about policy and science,” Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote.

The polar bear was the first species added to the Endangered Species List solely because of the threat from global warming.

The status of polar bears became an issue in 2005 after the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace filed a petition arguing that shrinking ice impaired the bears' ability to catch prey and could lead to their extinction. In December 2006, then-Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne declared the bears "threatened," rather than endangered and in imminent danger of extinction. Endangered and threatened species receive the same protections, such as protection of critical habitats, population recovery assistance and prohibition of harm to the species or its habitat. For threatened species, however, the government can reduce protections or allow exemptions.

If the bears were listed as endangered, new power plants could be blocked, as well as other sources of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. It also could make petroleum exploration more difficult.
As a result, Kempthorne created a "special rule" stating that the Act would not be used to set climate policy or limit greenhouse gas emissions, pesticides, mercury and other pollutants outside of the Arctic that harm the bear. The Obama administration upheld this policy.

The state of Alaska and hunting groups argued that the listing was unnecessary because the bear is protected by other laws.

“With the population of the species in decline, the needless hunting of them for sport must not be an option,” said Jeffrey Flocken, D.C. Office Director, International Fund for Animal Welfare. “As pro-trophy hunting organizations continue the fight to skirt existing laws and import polar bear trophies, today’s decision serves to reinforce the fact that the species is in jeopardy. The short-term special interests of hunting groups must never take precedence over long-term conservation efforts for the protection of polar bears.”

Currently, conservation groups are challenging Kempthorne's special rule in court.

“This decision is an important affirmation that the science demonstrating that global warming is pushing the polar bear toward extinction simply cannot be denied,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “While we are disappointed that the polar bear will not receive the more protective endangered status it deserves, maintaining Endangered Species Act listing for the polar bear is a critical part of giving this species back its future.”

Studies show that rising temperatures are quickly melting the Arctic sea ice, forcing polar bears inland. In September 2007, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey released a comprehensive nine-volume analysis of the science and reached a dire forecast: Two-thirds of the bear's habitat would disappear by 2050.

Polar bears are experts at hunting ringed seals and other prey on sea ice. But they are so unsuccessful on land that they spend their summers fasting, losing more than 2 pounds a day. Overall, scientists believe the global population of 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears remains robust. But virtually all polar bear experts predict rapid population declines in the Arctic, which is warming faster than anyplace else in the world, changing too rapidly for the bears to adapt and find another source of food.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20413
I agree with NRAamy; well said.

Edit: Disagree w/ McB
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spathy:
Hi Rusty :O)


Hello Spathy

Happy 4th to you!
Member Since: May 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
It's extremely funny to sit here and read Nea's (people its with an A the feminine version) posts.

I put a question on the table yesterday asking where is the hard evidence this is man-made warming...

I got nothing back...

I asked for a group that doesn't receive government dollars to come up with the conclusion of warming through their own research...

He didn't answer that either.

McBill did his best atleast he tried...

Nea asked a question earlier today and I answered it right away and apparently he doesn't think I did.

I even quoted it and showed him but apparently if you prove somebody a liar they tend to just ignore you just like MichaelSTL
Member Since: May 10, 2011 Posts: 15 Comments: 1297
how many people have you ignored Neaop? just curious
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Sounds to me like someone is ducking and went into hiding.

So...you're saying Rusty is avoiding my question because he doesn't have an adequate or reasonable response? Okay, I'll buy that. Thanks for the clarification.
Quoting cat5hurricane:
Does FLWaterFront ring a bell? How about Eagle101. How about calusakat? Why don't you take a minute and try to remember what you had in common with just that sampling.

Ummm...I don't recall FLWaterfront. Eagle101 was a hard-right conservative. Nothing wrong with that, but he seemed to allow his ideology to blind him to the truth about science. Calusakat? Is that an earlier incarnation of you? (And, for that matter, was SeaStep?) All I know is that the name means he/she likely lives in SWFL, so we have that much in common, if nothing else.
Quoting cat5hurricane:
I'll give you a hint, old buddy. It has something to do with exactly what you have been doing the past few days here.

Do you mind clarifying that? Or at least providing another hint? Or two? Or three? My "past few days here" have been spent doing what I've spent the past 20 months here: interacting with others about climate and weather using the same one and only handle I've ever used here.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13603
Yes and no Aamy.
Science keeps finding out that the balances in nature seem to counteract the seemingly bad results of any change.

I am going to try and find a story about an invasion of a foreign life form in the Potomac River actually saved the river.
A case of not understanding all we dont know.


thanks for the answer, spathy!

:)
Member Since: January 24, 2007 Posts: 317 Comments: 31946

Viewing: 634 - 584

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.