The GeoBlogosphere Review #1

Published 2008-02-13 by Chris

I thought I’d start making note of the bigger stories that a few members of the ever-expanding geo-blogosphere have discussed over the last two weeks. Kind of like a naturally occurring Accretionary Wedge, I intend for this to be a regular feature highlighting those issues we couldn’t shut up about. So without further delay I present; The GeoBlogosphere Review, Issue 1 for the two weeks covering 2008-01-28 to 2008-02-10.

In this edition, I review the stories regarding the Anthropocene as discussed in a recent GSA paper. We take a look at the usefulness of the BPR3 “peer reviewed paper” blogging and science blogging in general, squish spiders in space and dress ourselves geologically.

The Anthropocene

The concept of introducing a new geological epoch (as if we needed to revise more of our precious mnemonics following Pluto’s removal), was recently refloated in a GSA paper entitled Are we now living in the Anthropocene.

Highly Allochthonous
Chris over at Highly Allochthonous: commented in an article entitled “Do we we need a new geological epoch?“;

Anthropocene! Naming a new geological time period after ourselves certainly has a nice dramatic ring to it, even if it smacks of the hubris that got us into our current climatic mess in the first place.

After giving a very good rundown on how arbitrary and varied some of the boundaries within the geological timescale are, Chris concludes that it’s probably way too early to start considering a new epoch.

Laelaps
Brian Switek of Laelaps: weighed in with Just a blip of the geologic radar;

While the attachment of the moniker to our current age might be alluring given the ecologic havoc we’ve inflicted on the planet, in all I think it’s a bad move (more of a PR stunt than a rigorous scientific idea). How long is the hypothetical Anthropocene going to last? A million years? (And that’s being generous.)

And also concludes that it’s being far too presumptuous to declare a new epoch at this early stage of the game. Brian concludes with an excerpt from Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology which I rather enjoyed.

goodSchist
I chimed in here, and probably went way overboard with my article The Anthropocene: Time for a new epoch;

And if you consider the human phenomenon as a single natural process, it may make more sense to consider the beginning, duration and end as a single time period.

And I conclude by asking if, by the time we’ve killed everything that we’ll end up killing, if it could be considered an entirely new period in the same way the Cretaceous period lead into the Tertiary.

Universe Today
Nancy Atkinson gives us a nice, neutral rundown at Universe Today: Are We Living in a New Geologic Epoch?;

The evidence the geologists cite include the dramatic increase in lead concentration in the soil and water since about 1800 and the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

About: Geology
Andrew Alden over at About: Geology gives us The Anthropocene revisited, where he lays out his original thoughts regarding the epoch;

I was skeptical: couldn’t we make the same point by naming the Anthropocene as a time unit of age rank within the Holocene epoch, without doing violence to the current order? I thought that would raise consciousness enough about our power to change the planet.

..and gives us a brief review of the GSA paper that started this blogging cage-match.

Greg Laden’s Blog
Greg Laden’s Blog: doesn’t dilly-dally around, entitling his entry Are we in the Anthropocene? No;

Proposals to give the latter part of the present geological period (the Holocene) a new name … the Anthropocene … are misguided, scientifically invalid, and obnoxious.

And goes on to suggest we never even left the Pleistocene, haven’t seen the end of the Holocene, and are in no position or of any perspective to scientifically decree a new epoch. He does make some good points, especially about naming and considering the current time as the “Anthropogenic Extinction”. Many of the comments give reasonably good rebuttals and Brian R of Clastic Detritus makes some excellent points (it seems combative but it’s not). It’s well worth a read.

Clastic Detritus
And speaking of Brian R of Clastic Detritus, Will science reporters ever get it? gives us a little rant about how some science reporting is just a bit off;

WTF? It’s as if the new epoch was coming sometime in the future, but we made it come quicker. WE MAKE UP THE TIME PERIODS PEOPLE!!! We decide when the boundaries are. They don’t frickin’ exist without us!

And that’s pretty much the summary of the whole debate. If it’s useful, we should define it. There’s no absolute definition of what makes an epoch and what doesn’t. Whether science reporting is good enough or not, however, segways nicely into:

BPR3 and Science Blogging in General

The BPR3 peer-reviewed paper blogging collective/scheme/idea/club that’s rapidly making its way around the science blogs of the world made quite a stir in the last couple of weeks for the geologists out there. With a varying opinion on whether it was good, bad, too much hard work, or just didn’t feel right.

Olelog

Ole let everyone know about his scientific attention deficit “disorder”, and why his blogging for the love of it doesn’t fit the ideas of the BPR3;

According to the Geotripper (in the post here) this could mean that I suffer from “a scientific version of attention-deficit disorder”. Well, suffer is not the right word, it is more like delight.

Green Gabbro

In her new blogging home at Scienceblogs, Maria of Green Gabbro tells us it’s all a bit too serious and a bit too much like work;

I suppose I wouldn’t be sad if sciencey science discussion happened, but my goal here is to foster wank-fests among a lay audience, not to make blogs the new AGU conference beer break.

Clastic Detritus

Brian dispenses his opinions, splitting science blogger and scientists who blog into groups;

This made me wonder about the constantly-growing group of blogs we tend to group into “science blogs”. What are science blogs?

And then gives a review of the BPR3 ScienceBlogging.org;

I think this is great. Firstly, the reader can click on that right away to get the paper…that’s just plain and simple convenience. Secondly, it keeps posts out that aren’t really about a real paper. Most science blogs (including me) have other posts not really about any particular research paper. This is a great filter.

Highly Allochthonous

Chris at Highly Allochthonous gives a rundown of the whole saga, including highlighting a the recent misue of the BPR3 icon by creationists;

Within the geoblogosphere at least, the reaction to Casey Luskin of the Discovery Insitute’s unauthorized hijacking of the BPR3 icon (Mike has the full saga) has morphed into a much broader and more interesting debate: about the ResearchBlogging project itself, about how it fits into peoples’ ideas of science blogging , and even about what the term ’science blogging’ actually means.

Lounge of the Lab Lemming

And finally in a slight deviation from the topic at hand, Lab Lemming shows just how inbred specialist fields can be;

One of the oft repeated refrains of the moonbat fora is that peer review creates scientific inbreeding, stifling new and interesting research that challenges old orthodoxy. Some folks respond to this accusation with denial, suggesting that scientists, as pure acolytes of the temple of pristine knowledge, are above such things. To these people, I present a former (special) issue of the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences.

Mercury’s Spider

NASA/JPL’s Messenger probe has had its first decent swing past Mecury. This was on the way to its final gravity assit that’ll put it into permenant orbit around one of the least studied planets in the solar system. During the first pass, Messenger happened upon this formations, which still has people scratching their heads. The Mercury Spider;

Looks pretty weird doesn’t it? Here’s what the few who dared to take a stab at it had to say.

About: Geology

Andrew Alden at About: Geology gives us the naming convention that’s sure to catch, due to its descriptiveness;

My first impulse is to call it a “spider graben,” because it looks like the result of a deep swelling from below, after which radial slivers of the crust slipped down between the adjoining crust slices—that’s the “graben” part.

All My Faults Are Stress Related

Kim, over at All My Faults Are Stress Related gets right to the point when it comes to things like this;

Now, I don’t have any answers about Mercury. I’ve never been there, and… well, I’m no fan of extreme temperatures, so I don’t have any desire to go. So, without being able to slap a compass on the outcrop, how could I possibly know anything? Isn’t it all just wild speculation?

Greg Laden’s Blog

Over at Greg Laden’s Blog we’re told what the formation looks like, and what it actually is;

This looks like a photograph of a mountain, possibly a volcano, with natural drainage systems emanating from it. But it is not.
It is actually a large depression with numerous troughs emanating, perhaps, into it. They can’t be erosional features because that would require some kind of liquid, presumably not available on this planet.

Threadless Geology Shirt

Threadless got around to reprinting the t-shirt I’m wearing right now. The stratigraphically impossible geology shirt;

Highly Allochthonous

Chris at Highly Allochthonous states the obvious, referring to Brian’s post in the Accretionary Wedge #5;

Brian might not like it, but I think this t-shirt is pretty cool.

Nova Geoblog

Callan Bentley of Nova Geoblog first poses the question;

Tell me why this t-shirt design (recently re-issued at Threadless.com) is wrong. There’s a major error in that sketch somewhere that makes it a geological impossibility.

…and then posts an answer;

If they’re tilted at an angle, why aren’t the layers underneath? The principles of superposition, lateral continuity, and original horizontality suggest that if these layers are tilted up at a crazy angle, then so should the underlying layers

That’s it for the GeoBlogosphere Edition 1. If you think there’s posts on any of these topics that should be added to the list, post the details in the comments and I’ll post it.

• 
• 
• 

Original content Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (details)