This press release is brought to you by our friends at the National Science Foundation, it is not a joke. However, it is too odd not to spoof a bit.
Here are some preliminary results, there’s more at the end of this article.
![broken-glass-patio-table[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/broken-glass-patio-table1.jpg?resize=500%2C375&quality=83)
Broken Glass Yields Clues to Climate Change
![]()
Ordinary drinking glasses and atmospheric dust particles break apart in similar patterns
The comparative sizes of dust particles in the atmosphere, from a dust storm satellite photo. |
December 27, 2010
Clues to future climate may be found in the way an ordinary drinking glass shatters.
Results of a study published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences find that microscopic particles of dust can break apart in patterns that are similar to the fragment patterns of broken glass and other brittle objects.
The research, by National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Jasper Kok, suggests there are several times more dust particles pumped into the atmosphere than previously believed, since shattered dust appears to produce an unexpectedly high number of large fragments.
The finding has implications for understanding future climate change because dust plays a significant role in controlling the amount of solar energy in the atmosphere.
Depending on their size and other characteristics, some dust particles reflect solar energy and cool the planet, while others trap energy as heat.
“As small as they are, conglomerates of dust particles in soils behave the same way on impact as a glass dropped on a kitchen floor,” Kok says. “Knowing this pattern can help us put together a clearer picture of what our future climate will look like.”
The study may also improve the accuracy of weather forecasting, especially in dust-prone regions. Dust particles affect clouds and precipitation, as well as temperature.
“This research provides valuable new information on the nature and distribution of dust aerosols in the atmosphere,” says Sarah Ruth, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funds NCAR.
“The results may lead to improvements in our ability to model and predict both weather and climate.”
Kok’s research focused on a type of airborne particle known as mineral dust.
These particles are usually emitted when grains of sand are blown into soil, shattering dirt and sending fragments into the air.
The fragments can be as large as about 50 microns in diameter, or about the thickness of a fine strand of human hair.
The smallest particles, which are classified as clay and are as tiny as 2 microns in diameter, remain in the atmosphere for about a week, circling much of the globe and exerting a cooling influence by reflecting heat from the Sun back into space.
Larger particles, classified as silt, fall out of the atmosphere after a few days. The larger the particle, the more it will tend to have a heating effect on the atmosphere.
Kok’s research indicates that the ratio of silt particles to clay particles is two to eight times greater than represented in climate models.
Since climate scientists carefully calibrate the models to simulate the actual number of clay particles in the atmosphere, the paper suggests that models most likely err when it comes to silt particles.
Most of these larger particles swirl in the atmosphere within about 1,000 miles of desert regions, so adjusting their quantity in computer models should generate better projections of future climate in desert regions, such as the southwestern United States and northern Africa.
Additional research will be needed to determine whether future temperatures in those regions will increase as much or more than currently indicated by computer models.
The study results also suggest that marine ecosystems, which draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, may receive substantially more iron from airborne particles than previously estimated.
The iron enhances biological activity, benefiting ocean food webs, including plants that take up carbon during photosynthesis.
In addition to influencing the amount of solar heat in the atmosphere, dust particles also are deposited on mountain snowpacks, where they absorb heat and accelerate snowmelt.
Physicists have long known that certain brittle objects, such as glass, rocks, or even atomic nuclei, fracture in predictable patterns. The resulting fragments follow a certain range of sizes, with a predictable distribution of small, medium, and large pieces.
Scientists refer to this type of pattern as scale invariance or self-similarity.
Physicists have devised mathematical formulas for the process by which cracks propagate in predictable ways as a brittle object breaks.
Kok theorized that it would be possible to use these formulas to estimate the range of dust particle sizes. By applying the formulas for fracture patterns of brittle objects to soil measurements, Kok determined the size distribution of emitted dust particles.
To his surprise, the formulas described measurements of dust particle sizes almost exactly.
“The idea that all these objects shatter in the same way is a beautiful thing, actually,” Kok says. “It’s nature’s way of creating order in chaos.”
-NSF-
==============================================================
Here are other ways to use broken glass to forecast and interpret your local climate issues:




![s-CFL-BROKEN-large[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/s-cfl-broken-large1.jpg?resize=260%2C190&quality=83)

![broken,down,fall,full,glass,water-1cdd37bc15916023aad5bda16b108775_h[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/brokendownfallfullglasswater-1cdd37bc15916023aad5bda16b108775_h1.jpg?resize=350%2C460&quality=83)

![AlGoreStainedGlass[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/algorestainedglass1.jpg?resize=450%2C355&quality=83)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…it looks like the current inhabitants of the White House are ahead of the curve on this one. The EPA already wants to regulate dust. See here: http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=12899662
Boy for a settled science there sure is a lot we are still learning.
Such a pane in the glass, this is.
Ah, I get it, so the warming would’ve been worse, but we’ve also caused a bunch of dust which is slowing down global warming.
Thank you “science.”
“As small as they are, conglomerates of dust particles in soils behave the same way on impact as a glass dropped on a kitchen floor,” Kok says.
I think we need to pay more heed to what Kok says. In fact (ladies) you can take that as a general principle.
lowercasefred says:
December 29, 2010 at 12:09 pm Right as rain, lowercasefred. I’m just tired of these guys being “surprised” at my expense.
These guys can go one (or, actually, ’42’) better, behold: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12012082
tp://www.futurict.ethz.ch/FuturICT
(I’m so not making any HH guide jokes here, oh no. Then again, Marvin the paranoid android had a few fitting lines of wisdom that could be pressed into service here…)
I “suggest” they “can” make vague suggestions of natural objects that might affect nature with a negative effect of a positive warming feedback effect if only they have understood a bunch of really complex stuff, hopefully, sounding cool but more like particle physic to the politicians or laymen with much influence on politician due to the fact that if only they could scare up enough research grants they’d be set for life, err, I mean they’d might be able to figure something out eventually. And besides if the other guys could get a direct link to the tax-available subject why shouldn’t they?
I remember a time, not too long ago, actually only 10 years, when too many economically challenged people and their companies throw away money on just about any IT project. Nobody needed an actual product just the thought of a potential mind dazzling product. We all know what happen in such a market that is open to the vapor ware industry and the ponze schemers.
I wonder what would happen to the world economy if inventors and engineers had it as easy getting money. Of course UN has always worked out of the principal that nobody needs to show an actual product or service before hand outs and the money just, “mysteriously”, disappears. But disregarding that fact, what would the global economy look like if inventors and engineer could effectively behave as yesterdays dot com puppies or todays climate hippies, the profiteering and the non-profiteering, the same way to get money en masse without first having something to show for?
“Larger particles, classified as silt, fall out of the atmosphere after a few days. The larger the particle, the more it will tend to have a heating effect on the atmosphere.
Kok’s research indicates that the ratio of silt particles to clay particles is two to eight times greater than represented in climate models.”
So let me get this straight. Silt warms the atmosphere. The amount of silt has been greatly underestimated. Therefore CO2 is MUCH LESS dangerous than we thought? This definitely needs to be researched further!
“In addition to influencing the amount of solar heat in the atmosphere, dust particles also are deposited on mountain snowpacks, where they absorb heat and accelerate snowmelt.”
For an article written in 2009 on a related topic, see:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
“At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon — small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels — absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere.”
I’ll help investigate this concept. I just love experiments where when you are done you can eat the results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_(food)
Michael says:
December 29, 2010 at 1:38 pm
“CO2 has virtually nothing to do with the climate of the planet.”
____
I wonder why it would be that a natural climate feedback process exists whereby CO2 is naturally sequestered out of the atmosphere every time that gas gets to a certain level? Seems an odd sort of feedback to exist if this lowly “do nothing” gas is just sort of there and having no effect what-so-ever to the climate?
I find your comment a wonderful example of the extremist skeptical thought that has gone too far the other way…of course, you may be just kidding, in which case….Happy New Year!
Straws and grasping come to mind!
Also “can I have more money to extend this important research, even though I already know the answer?”
I think NSF issued the article 3 months 4 days too early.
One wonders how much solar energy these dust particles could hold compared to the oceans…
So wind turbines will slow down surface wind, meaning less iron rich particles getting out over the ocean to feed the precious plankton which absorb the nasty co2’s. Maybe we’ve found the right lobbying tool here….
Hmmm?
We hardly need a computer model to predict the amount of particulates (that’s what the US EPA calls them- particulates) in air. Since particulate matter is a “criteria” pollutant with a National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Its volumetric concentration, mass, and size has been measured for at least 30 years throughout the U.S. The literature is voluminous.
For those who want a reference see:
http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
and
http://www.epa.gov/apti/Materials/APTI%20435%20student/Student%20Manual/Chapter_5_noTOC-cover_MRpf.pdf
and
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/pindex.html
…back from the cattle yards where I’ve now decided NOT to wean the calves
with these glass bottles I’ve got here…JUST in case and JUST so I can say I’ve ‘done my part(icles’?) today to help ‘save the atmosphere over over the U.S.’ because I’ve grown to really like you guys ‘heaps’ (as they say over here)…
That said, though… There are two little items I’d like you Scientists to explain to me…
1. Why with all this talk of ‘climate change’ don’t you talk of the obvious chem trail
crap being sent into the atmosphere over your very U.S.A. heads…? Isn’t that a concern to you guys??? …or is that ‘HAARP’ the real culprit of ‘climate change’, or not?
And…
2. Why oh WHY did I think of ‘Yes, We Have No Bananas’ like my friend, ‘latitude’ there ~ while I was smiling at these amusingly great photos???
Forever Enquiringly Minded…(as is usual…)
(the admittedly ‘dusty’) Cynthia Lauren
…continuing to enjoy a happy 75 degree F day in the sunny Southeast…
Cool… this reinforces my theory that “climate researchers” are actually clueless gits, throwing away every last piece of Science that doesn’t suit them, only to “rediscover” bits and pieces later.
And that’s not intended as humor.
Since they’re inventing their discipline as they go along, the phrase “climate scientists say:” should hold as much weight as “astrologists say:”. Honestly, I believe most of them wouldn’t know Science if it bit them in the face.
Meanwhile, honest working people have used this amazing new discovery daily in their jobs for decades. Go figure.
Oops – I forgot I meant to post this important and completely relevant video:
What could be the next “scientific researches” to show similarity with climate change — curved light from flashlights, steel bars becoming easier to bend, birds sleeping on tree branches with one foot curled up,…
Yep…! I’m back from the cattle yards where I’ve just now decided NOT to wean the calves with these here glass bottles…JUST in case, and JUST so I can say that today, I’ve ‘done my part(icles’?) to help ‘save the atmosphere over over the U.S. and the Globe in general! (A thought worthy of a Winfield Red, in fact) because I’ve grown to really like you guys ‘heaps’.
That said, though… There are two little items I’d like you Scientists to explain to me…
1. Why with all this talk of ‘climate change’ don’t you talk of the obvious chem trail
crap being sent into the atmosphere over your very U.S.A. heads…? Isn’t that a concern to you guys??? …or is that ‘HAARP’ the real culprit of ‘climate change’, or not?
And…
2. Why oh WHY did I think of ‘Yes, We Have No Bananas’ like my friend, ‘latitude’ there ~ while I was smiling at these amusingly great photos???
Forever Enquiringly Minded…(as is usual…)
(the admittedly ‘dusty’) Cynthia Lauren
…continuing to enjoy a happy 75 degree F day in the sunny Southeast…
Typo in title ??
“New tool for climate change prediction”
could be…..
“New fool for climate change prediction”
It looks, to this layman, that they are trying, ( woefully in this case ), to reposition themselves and their funding to account for how cold it is going to get. Obviously it is still our fault and requires extra study. FFS these charlatans have no shame whatsoever.
The NSF press release is not a joke, they mean it seriously, the NSF is the joke!
Thanks, and a Happy New Year!
“Additional research will be needed to determine whether future temperatures in those regions will increase as much or more than currently indicated by computer models.”
Ah,I love the smell of Grant Money in the morning…
The feedback process is BIOLOGICAL; it’s consumed by plants, mostly bacteria and phytoplankton, and sequestered in HUGE layers of carbonate on seafloors. That’s not climate, that’s EATING. It takes a hungumious crustal event to release it for re-use. So the planet’s flora tend to drive CO2 down to starvation levels, until a catastrophe kick-starts them again.