Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Western US Drought Has Made Earth's Crust Rise

timothy posted about a month ago | from the like-a-burden's-been-lifted dept.

Earth 90

Loss of both groundwater and water stored in surface reservoirs in the drought-striken western U.S. isn't just expensive and contentious: it's evidently making the earth's crust rise in the West. Scripps researchers say that the average rise across a wide stretch of the West Coast is approximately one sixth of an inch. Scientists came to this conclusion by studying data collected from hundreds of GPS sensors across the Western U.S., installed primarily to detect small changes in the ground due to earthquakes. But the GPS data can also be used to show very small changes in elevation. The study specifically examined GPS stations on bedrock or very thin soil because it provides the most accurate measurement of groundwater loss, said Duncan Agnew, professor of geophysics at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Areas with thick soil, such as farms, can see the ground sinking as the soil dries out. But Agnew said the bedrock underneath that soil is actually rising. The highest uplift of the Earth occurred in California's mountains because there is so much water below them, Agnew said. The uplift was less in Nevada and the Great Basin.

cancel ×

90 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wait.. did you feel that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47740879)

i did!

Re:wait.. did you feel that? (2)

linearZ (710002) | about a month ago | (#47741067)

You mean this: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear... [usgs.gov] ?

Timely,

Re: wait.. did you feel that? (2)

MickLinux (579158) | about a month ago | (#47741379)

Making the earth's crust rise should not directly affect the strike-slip San Andreas fault at all. However, it has been anecdotally noted on syzygyjob.com forums that thrust quakes seem to be on the rise, along with hypothesizing that the rising crust might release friction allowing exactly that.

For my own part, I've noticed a large increase of small quakes surrounding the great elliptical basin, the southwest of which coincides with the rising sierra nevada; and occasional time-coincident radial forays into the same basin.

So I half wonder if the rising isn't part of a larger-scale process.

Re: wait.. did you feel that? (2)

Curtman (556920) | about three weeks ago | (#47742177)

So I half wonder if the rising isn't part of a larger-scale process.

IANAG, but I think the Rocky Mountains are clear evidence of this larger-scale process.

warning do not read summary. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47740891)

Don't read the article either. Its bad. It hurts. Slashdot is worse than the NSA. The NSA won't mod you down. Can't we just blame this on climate change, or george bush?

Re:warning do not read summary. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47740965)

So when Obama blames everything on Bush, does that mean Obama is racist? And when Future President Hillary will blame everything on Obama, will that mean Hillary will be racist and sexist?

Only one sixth of an inch? (5, Funny)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about a month ago | (#47740907)

Only one sixth of an inch? Are you sure?
My Galileo positioning system tells me that the earth's crust rose by more than 113km.

Re:Only one sixth of an inch? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741027)

The extra 112.99km can be sufficiently explained by space expansion. Don't question our model please.

Re:Only one sixth of an inch? (1)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about a month ago | (#47741081)

I saw what you did there...

Re:Only one sixth of an inch? (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month ago | (#47741605)

Why the crust rose may not be due to drought, even though it's possible, just look at a few pictures with a slider to compare with here [aftonbladet.se] . (Swedish site) Unfortunately the pictures aren't from the exact same location causing the before/after perspective to be a bit different.

I concur (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47740941)

Ants. Lots of ants building. The ants like it dry.

Rising Crust (2)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | about a month ago | (#47740949)

So it was like a frozen pizza or something?

Re:Rising Crust (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month ago | (#47741059)

Or an old Windows installation.

Re:Rising Crust (3, Informative)

dhanson865 (1134161) | about a month ago | (#47741879)

Dude you've apparently never made a pizza crust and also apparently don't pay attention to the types of bread in the world.

You don't have to freeze pizza dough to have a rising crust. In fact every bread that isn't a flatbread has a rising crust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]

I'm going to suggest you start with http://www.pizzamaking.com/for... [pizzamaking.com] and make some pizza from scratch until you make something that isn't a hocky puck. Then if you want to go back to frozen pizza you can or you can move on to trying white whole wheat, red whole wheat, or one of the regional styles (NY, Chicago, Neapolitan, California, Sicilian, etcetera) see http://www.pizzamaking.com/for... [pizzamaking.com] for more options.

Doesn't matter if you harvest your own yeast (sourdough starter method) or you buy store bought yeast, any type of pizza I've ever made has yeast in it and thus had a rising crust.

Re:Rising Crust (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about three weeks ago | (#47743377)

Well aren't you a sensitive foodie? I do believe that sound you're hearing is the WHOOOOOOOSH of your dough collapsing!

Re:Rising Crust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47763673)

Pizza is disgusting. Enjoy your heart attack, greaseball.

Inch? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47740961)

Science and inch are not compatible.
What's an inch? Or a sixth of an inch? Can't compute.

Young people these days (3, Funny)

Bruce66423 (1678196) | about a month ago | (#47740985)

It was good enough for the British scientists of the 19th century, but young people these days are made of wimpier stuff :P

Re: Young people these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741007)

All is fine grandpa.
You forgot to write "Get off my lawn"
Have you taken your Alzheimer pills? Sorry, you probably have forgotten that, too.

Would you fancy a nice cuppa?

Re: Young people these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741771)

I'd fancy a nice cup of shut the fuck up, so I can enjoy my whiskey and cigarettes.

Kids these days. Fucking pussies...

Re: Young people these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47743385)

You do realize your brain isn't what it used to be right, grandpa? You just told us all YOU wanted a cup of shut the fuck up. I agree wholeheartedly!

Re: Young people these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47745033)

Back in my day, such things were luxuries so if any one had some, they would share.

You sound like you've never had a cup of shut the fuck up in your life. Would you like some?

Re:Inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741005)

FIxed it for you, The land rose by 2.82980855 × 10-14 Astronomical Units or 4.23333mm but since 1/6 inch lacks precision its probably not exactly this

Re:Inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741025)

Thanks! That helps.

Re:Inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741129)

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=please+compute+1%2F6+of+an+inch

Re:Inch? (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month ago | (#47741629)

And who's inch? The Danish classic inch and the British aren't even the same.

Re:Inch? (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a month ago | (#47741787)

And who's inch? The Danish classic inch and the British aren't even the same.

Oblig: lose the damn apos'trophe there.

Anyway, it was Hedwig's .

Re:Inch? (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about three weeks ago | (#47743395)

Oh man, I bet he's pissed!

Re:Inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47748063)

The inch is internationally defines as 25.4mm.
Boom. Done.

Re:Inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47742213)

Science and inch are not compatible. What's an inch? Or a sixth of an inch? Can't compute.

It's your penis size, from fully erect to flacid.

Re:Inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47744819)

What's an inch?

Not sure why they can't use SI units that we can all understand, but I think about a half a meter or so, no?

Re:Inch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47748037)

oh shut up.
it's tied to NIST and International absolute standards, and as such is completely usable in any mathmatical calculations.
specifically an inch is 25.4mm. period.
we can use FartNozzles as units if we wanted to as long as it's tied to an absolute standard.

Dive down the rabbit hole deep enough and the meter is no more magical, and is ultimately just as arbitrarily chosen.
At one point it was a special bar of metal. At present it's now the "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second".
Not 1/299,792,457 of a second, and not 1/299,792,459 of a second, but 1/299,792,458 exactly and not an ounce more.
Why 1/299,792,458 of a second? Because it then makes the speed of light in a vacumm 299,792,458 meters/sec.....which is rather logically circular, so essentially just "because". oh...and they also recommend not using that defintion over any distances where relativity may come into play.

Not just because of liquid water (4, Interesting)

bluegutang (2814641) | about a month ago | (#47741021)

Large portions of North America and Europe are currently rising because the weight of glaciers that once pushed them down has been removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not just because of liquid water (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741041)

You idiot. Glaciers are ice. Ice floats. Stupid American on slashdot. Marvel I know.

Re:Not just because of liquid water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741045)

What's it like to live in the universe of the antigravity glaciers?

Re:Not just because of liquid water (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741143)

Actually you know nothing.
And you are the idiot.
Now STFU and GTFO.

Re:Not just because of liquid water (3, Informative)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about a month ago | (#47741291)

You idiot. Glaciers are ice. Ice floats. Stupid American on slashdot. Marvel I know.

Apparently, stupidity extends to you as well [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Not just because of liquid water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47744079)

>getting trolled this hard

Re:Not just because of liquid water (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47741343)

You idiot. Glaciers are ice. Ice floats. Stupid American on slashdot. Marvel I know.

If you are holding a glass of water, and someone puts an icecube in it, does it weigh more?

Re:Not just because of liquid water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741477)

Do not confuse weight and mass. If the ice was formed from the water, then of course not. Which proves the point forwarded by the laddy from Liverpool. Now, if your argument is this ice cube materialized from 'out there', then of course.

Re:Not just because of liquid water (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about three weeks ago | (#47743415)

I did not know Dr. Who posted AC on Slashdot.

Re:Not just because of liquid water (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about three weeks ago | (#47744983)

it would be if someone dropped a new icecube into the water.

If a glacier melts, it's irrelevant where it came from. When it melts, it flows into the ocean where its weight AND mass get distributed over the entire Globe because it's now a fluid. The entire weight of the glacier is not removed from that tectonic plate, but the majority of it certainly is.

Re:Not just because of liquid water (1)

demonrob (1001871) | about three weeks ago | (#47755029)

I thought this was talking about ice floating on NthAmerican and/or European soil? So go ahead and retry the experiment by putting glacier quality ice and see if it floats in a cup of dirt. And anyway, this is all rubbish, crust has been going up and down throughout the earth's history so this isn't special.....

Re:Not just because of liquid water (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about a month ago | (#47741055)

When does America start sinking again due to the large weight of its citizens?

Re:Not just because of liquid water (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a month ago | (#47741141)

probably after Europe does. There is after all twice as many europeans as Americans, and Europe is gaining steadily on the USA in Obesity.

Re:Not just because of liquid water (2)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about three weeks ago | (#47742223)

Mexico has actually surpassed the US in obesity.. and they're on the same continent. We win! Oh, wait..

Re:Not just because of liquid water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741317)

All that weight up there is causing the polar shift. Some day soon the poles are going to flip due to americas weight problem!

Re:Not just because of liquid water (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about three weeks ago | (#47744197)

Yes, but those talk about regions where there were massive layers of glaciers, typically over a kilometre thick. A good measure of where those ended is "where the exceptionally fertile black top soil is abundant". Because that fertile black top soil is the top soil that was dragged by expanding glaciers from northern regions to its current place.

As a result, speed of this rise is very stable, as crust recovers from pressure during thousands and tens of thousands of years. It most certainly should not apply to regions without significant former glacier coverage, such as very fertile California, and it should not suddenly accelerate or decelerate. It's going to keep rising at a very steady speed over tens of thousands of years, as it has done before and is doing now.

Re:Not just because of liquid water (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about three weeks ago | (#47746291)

Large portions of North America and Europe are currently rising because the weight of glaciers that once pushed them down has been removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

I wonder how that plays with the measurements taken with relation to sea levels rising due to the same global warming melting the glaciers in the first place.

Re:Not just because of liquid water (1)

bluegutang (2814641) | about three weeks ago | (#47746333)

It's more due to the melting of the gigantic glaciers that once covered much of North America during the Ice Ages, like they now cover Greenland. The little glaciers sitting on tops of mountains, which are now melting due to global warming, have a much smaller effect.

Re:Not just because of liquid water (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about three weeks ago | (#47746531)

It's more due to the melting of the gigantic glaciers that once covered much of North America during the Ice Ages, like they now cover Greenland. The little glaciers sitting on tops of mountains, which are now melting due to global warming, have a much smaller effect.

Thanks but I'm thinking about the scientists checking if water level is rising in, say, California, due to global warming, well, globally. They might come to the conclusion that there is no sea level change because of the raising of California which would be hiding the actual sea level change.

Kardashian seesaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741031)

They should be seeing a corresponding decrease in the crust height on the East coast, since that's where Kim Kardashian normally sits.

Re:Kardashian seesaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47744021)

"They should be seeing a corresponding decrease in the crust height on the East coast, since that's where Kim Kardashian normally sits."

But her hair on the back is only removed on the West coast, so the weight should be more or less equally distributed.

That solves the sea level issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741039)

NT

begone, mandatory subject line! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741061)

They should to compensate for the loss of ballast by extracting more helium from the earth.

Ah (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about a month ago | (#47741077)

It's probably Dick Cheney's fault.

He also traveled back in time and caused the Dust Bowl.

Re:Ah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47743429)

Hey 2001 called and wants its idiot back. Everyone knows everything is Obama's fault.

sea level (1)

chittychitty!! (2139420) | about a month ago | (#47741287)

Excellent. This takes care of the problem of rising sea levels.

Time to relocate? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a month ago | (#47741341)

The Earth is in a constant flux of change and evolving. Not exactly new news. How the human animal will adapt to these ever constant changes will be the 'news'.

Earthquakes and volcanoes erupting are a constant in the Earth's progression. Our impact on the enviornment is what is actually changing the game. Are we impacting (at least temporarily) the weather that we rely upon? Are we intelligent enough to create solutions to the problems we have/are creating?

The real question is, can we survive ourselves?

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

khallow (566160) | about three weeks ago | (#47742545)

The real question is, can we survive ourselves?

The real threat seems to be large nuclear war or some similar military-grade existential threat (weaponized diseases, for example). As long as we don't try to kill each other with such weapons, then it seems to me that the climate related stuff isn't that serious a danger. In other words, if the environmental impact is bad enough that it triggers a large scale nuclear war, then yes, it's really bad else it's just another thing we can adapt to.

Re:Time to relocate? (0)

Luckyo (1726890) | about three weeks ago | (#47744215)

Already forgot the tsunami that killed over 30.000 people and effectively wiped out infrastructure in large region of Japan I see.
Granted that's not hard to do considering that media largely ignored that part in favour of far less damaging Fukushima accident caused by said tsunami instead.

Rising crust causes earthquakes. Those cause direct damage as well as tsunamis. Are you certain you wish to outright dismiss forces that when applied to earth crust trump biggest nuclear weapons we have by orders of magnitude so easily?

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

khallow (566160) | about three weeks ago | (#47744933)

Already forgot the tsunami that killed over 30.000 people and effectively wiped out infrastructure in large region of Japan I see.

Completely irrelevant here since both the damage was insignificant on a global scale and quickly repaired (extremely rapid adaptation on a time scale faster than climate change operates on). I'm worried about things that quickly kill 300 million people. Nuclear war can do that. Sea level rise can't.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about three weeks ago | (#47745563)

Damage isn't repaired to this day in many places. Infrastructure outside large cities an major pathways is still in a bad shape. Catastrophies are increasing on global scale as well, as they are not localized so a single region.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

khallow (566160) | about three weeks ago | (#47748625)

Infrastructure outside large cities an major pathways is still in a bad shape.

But that was never in good shape. You aren't going to pack thousands of people per square km in the countryside.

Catastrophies are increasing on global scale as well, as they are not localized so a single region.

Do you actually have an example of a global catastrophe? Zero is not an increase over zero.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about three weeks ago | (#47752609)

On your first point, actually it was. Japan is extremely well developed due to being a relatively small island in comparison to its population.

Also, your second sentence is a strawman argument. No one besides you talked about a "global catastrophe". I was talking about "catastrophies are increasing on global scale". If you do not understand the obvious difference, may I suggest lessons in English language before proceeding with this discussion?

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

khallow (566160) | about three weeks ago | (#47752925)

You wrote:

Catastrophies are increasing on global scale as well

I was merely responding to that. What is "global scale" referring to then? Also, since I'm at it, I don't see any evidence of any increase in catastrophes. To the contrary, I see evidence of substantial declines in catastrophes and body counts when those catastrophes occur. A modern emergency/disaster response works wonders in reducing the occurrence and severity of catastrophes.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about three weeks ago | (#47754101)

Exactly what it says. "Catastrophies are increasing on global scale as well".

I'm not sure where you're looking for evidence either. We already know that there are more catastrophic floods such as recent ones in Central Europe, more extreme winds such as typhoons and hurricanes and so on, and those that appear are getting more powerful. Those things are directly tied to warmer water surface of the oceans.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

khallow (566160) | about three weeks ago | (#47755979)

We already know that there are more catastrophic floods such as recent ones in Central Europe, more extreme winds such as typhoons and hurricanes and so on, and those that appear are getting more powerful.

We and in particular you don't actually know such a thing. There has to be evidence of this first before there can be knowledge.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about three weeks ago | (#47758699)

You find pictures and videos of the said floods, hurricanes and so on, dead and displaced people and comparisons made by scientists to be inadmissible as evidence?

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

khallow (566160) | about three weeks ago | (#47761111)

You find pictures and videos of the said floods, hurricanes and so on, dead and displaced people and comparisons made by scientists to be inadmissible as evidence?

Of course, I find them inadmissible. You should too. Storms and such will continue to happen even if they are growing less frequent rather than more frequent. Evidence distinguishes between theories. The above information doesn't do that.

OTOH, "comparisons made by scientists" is so profound nebulous and unscientific a term, that it doesn't even qualify as information. I can find "comparisons made by scientists" to "prove" a huge variety of conspiracy theories or pseudoscience theories. That's in fact a standard tool of the trade to add a veneer of authority to all sorts of crazy assertions.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

khallow (566160) | about three weeks ago | (#47756287)

I just happened across an interesting study [reason.org] that backs my earlier assertions. From the "executive summary":

Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90% since the 1920s, in spite of a four - fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about three weeks ago | (#47758721)

Indeed. So has aggregate mortality from the main killers of such floods, known as "infectious diseases".

I'll let you figure out why.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

khallow (566160) | about three weeks ago | (#47761005)

I already figured that out long ago - modern medicine and public sanitation are wonderful things. I'm more interested in this huge piece of evidence which runs counter to your assertion that there are more catastrophes "on a global scale".

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about three weeks ago | (#47772327)

You just admitted that it doesn't, and then in the next sentence, you repeat the original claim.

I love denialist logic. Or lack of it.

Re:Time to relocate? (1)

khallow (566160) | about three weeks ago | (#47773551)

I find your supposed observations about "denialist logic" particularly absurd, since I supported my original argument with evidence while you have yet to present anything other than weak insults.

Tectonics (0)

tquasar (1405457) | about a month ago | (#47741487)

There was a 6.0 earthquake in the Napa Valley area near San Francisco today 2014-08-24 03:20:44 UTC-07:00. Could the changes mentioned in the LATimes story contribute to movement along the San Andreas Fault? http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ear... [usgs.gov] {%22feed%22%3A%227day_m25%22%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Atrue%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3Atrue%2C%22timeZone%22%3A%22local%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A[[30.221101852485987%2C-131.30859375]%2C[43.229195113965005%2C-106.69921875]]%2C%22overlays%22%3A{%22plates%22%3Atrue}%2C%22viewModes%22%3A{%22map%22%3Atrue%2C%22list%22%3Afalse%2C%22settings%22%3Atrue%2C%22help%22%3Afalse}} Sorry for the huge URL.

Re:Tectonics (5, Funny)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about a month ago | (#47741683)

%22feed%22%3A%227day_m25%22%2C%22search%22%3Anull%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22basemap%22%3A%22grayscale%22%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Atrue%2C%22restrictListToMap%22%3Atrue%2C%22timeZone%22%3A%22local%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A[[30.221101852485987%2C-131.30859375]%2C[43.229195113965005%2C-106.69921875]]%2C%22overlays%22%3A{%22plates%22%3Atrue}%2C%22viewModes%22%3A{%22map%22%3Atrue%2C%22list%22%3Afalse%2C%22settings%22%3Atrue%2C%22help%22%3Afalse

You really shouldn't try to type during an earthquake.

Re:Tectonics (3, Funny)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about a month ago | (#47741815)

Yes, the two findings (CA rising and 6.0 equake) are closely related. As has become common knowledge, the San Andreas fault is about to slip in a majorily massive way, and all of the USA east of it is going to sink into the Atlantic Ocean.

Oh. And what RealHocusLocus said about you typing during an equake...

GPS Accuracy (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about a month ago | (#47741819)

I'd like to know how this can be determined when GPS accuracy appears to be good only to about 3 meters.
http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps... [gps.gov]

Re:GPS Accuracy (3, Informative)

Megane (129182) | about a month ago | (#47741929)

Because that's its accuracy for knowing your absolute position in a short period of time. If you use it to determine relative position over a long period of time, it's much more accurate. Apparently there's something called "Carrier phase tracking" which has an accuracy of 2mm for surveying. Or they could have augmented it with ground-based transmitters.

Still, 4mm is quite a small distance to measure with GPS, even with a 2mm accuracy mode.

Re:GPS Accuracy (1)

dcw3 (649211) | about three weeks ago | (#47742689)

Interesting, but even with that, if Wikipedia is correct, the accuracy of that isn't quite what you're claiming.

" CPGPS working to within 1% of perfect transition reduces this error to 3 centimeters (1.2 in) of ambiguity."

Re:GPS Accuracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47742695)

Correction...responding to my own post. I was reading the wrong section, and you are correct.

Accuracy within 1% of wavelength in detecting the leading edge reduces this component of pseudorange error to as little as 2 millimeters.

Re:GPS Accuracy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47741963)

That accuracy limit is only for real time. For survey and timing purposes, averaging is used blur out the imperfections and results in inch/centimeter or nanosecond accuracy; assisted receivers (DGPS, WAAS, etc) vastly reduce the time to get this accuracy, but aren't available everywhere on the earth's surface.

No drought here in Colorado this year! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47742947)

There is no drought here in Colorado this year! Which means ALL the Colorado river & snow pack melt waters will get to California for irrigation & drinking. What's the prob?

Oh no! 'Climate change'! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47743367)

Or is it "Catastrophic man-made global warming"? Or just mindlessly repeating "Carbon! Carbon! Carbon!" over and over again?

I'm sick of this 'climate change' bullshit. Every fucking article is about it. There is no such thing as "Catastrophic man-made global warming".

www.climatedepot.com

Re:Oh no! 'Climate change'! (0)

Luckyo (1726890) | about three weeks ago | (#47744249)

In general, when something happens that causes catastrophies, we call it "catastrophic". Such as, you know, climate change.

Granted if you happen to live in those regions where climate change hasn't brought a significant impact yet, you can ignore it. Unfortunately most people don't have this luxury, and since news travel nearly instantly worldwide in the age of internet, I'm afraid you'll have to get off most of the internet if you want to stop hearing stories about other regions on the planet.

deliberate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47744861)

maybe they should stop spraying chemicals off the coast that prevents real cloud forming

Off-topic - but still (1)

FreedomFirstThenPeac (1235064) | about three weeks ago | (#47748657)

Does anyone remember when there were plans to inject water into faults to make them slip before the strains reached epic proportions? Fracking and drought are now running those sorts of experiments for us.

Isostatic Rebound, its called. (1)

bbsalem (2784853) | about three weeks ago | (#47751131)

The value measured in about 1 CM of rise over the Western US. In Places which were covered by continental glaciers as recently as 12,00 YA, the change in elevation can be measured in feet and it is uneven. The evidence is that drainages have been reversed in places like Canada in historical time as the crust rebounds. Ice and water are relatively dense, so that the weight of a mile of ice can sufficiently weigh down the crust which floats on the plastically deformable mantle. Although rock seems rigid to you and I, its so-called rheology, over large distances and times makes it behave like putty. Putty and clay can be used in scale models of geology to study effects like faulting and folding because of this. Years ago an important contender for explaining mountain building was gravity tectonics, before active plate motions were found to be the main cause.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47752075)

How do they know the drought caused the rise? Maybe the drought slowed it down. Less water, less steam, less moisture content in the rock. Maybe everybody driving smaller cars took some of the load off, and the crust is just now springing back to where it was. Maybe there is less hot air in there.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>