Newport Beach sandy bottom and sunrise
user82924 Nov 19, 2010 Rating: -2
dale kobetich Nov 17, 2010 Rating: -4
thanks every one for your comments...its great to share ones visions of the sea....
Seahog Nov 17, 2010 Rating: -3
Dale, your work is absolutely incredible! Set up skill and timing. Keep them coming. I could never tire of seeing images like this.
Spongerian Nov 17, 2010 Rating: -3
Loving the movement of the individual sand grains as the swell passes through. Gives a sense of the ephemeral seashore against the eternal sunrise.
Spongerian Dec 25, 2010 Rating: 1
As I said you don't need to invoke thermageddon to find many reasons to change to a new of doing things. It just happens that the carbon-based techno-economic system that we use right now takes both energy and raw materials from concentrated sources. The same, or equivalent, chemistry is available at a much less energy intense level within biology and biochemistry and without using the concentrated forms of carbon or using engineered reaction paths based on known, but not naturally occuring, thermodynamics. But this is 21st century science rather than the 18th century science that our current energy systems are built on. Hell, even nuclear reactors are just big kettles boiling water to push steam turbines. The basis of our tech is 3 centuries old, invented at a time when there were something like 500 million folk around. Its no wonder its struggling to keep up with 15 times the number. Check this one out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12051167. I saw Prof Haile (a very slight Sudanese? lady from CalTech) speak at the Royal Society in London 18 months ago on her research into ceria-based catalysis. She said 5 years until prototype then so I guess the team has had some new funding since ;) (conference report from the day http://engagingenergy.com/2009/06/10/report-from-the-royal-society-energy-materials-to-combat-climate-change-day-two)
Coelacanth Dec 21, 2010 Rating: 0
Thanks for that well informed and considered opinion Spongerian. I'll bet you have an awesome fossil collection from all that geology-related fossil fuel exploration/extraction work too. I still have to read a lot more to see what the world's climate experts are seemingly so united in their concern about. You obviously already have read and studied this issue and all it's complexities...and are very familiar with cycles of all kinds over very long time periods. It is still hard for me to comprehend how a 'trace' gas like CO2...that was only 0.028 per cent of the atmosphere 150 years ago...can have had such a noticeable greenhouse effect in raising average global temperatures by rising a whole 30 per cent of that(+0.009)to it's current staggering level of 0.037 percent! Especially when so much CO2(90 per cent)is physically absorbed by the oceans and is also taken up biologically and sequestered in all forms of marine & land dwelling organisms, plant and animal...& in their by-products and remains...like shells, coral rubble, bones & other forms of calcium carbonate...as well as wood, peat, coal, oil, etc.. The Vikings settled and were able to farm in Greenland about a thousand years ago during a global warming spell that could not possibly have been CO2 related. Until THAT global warming spell ended and a cooling spell began...and ended that Viking settlement. Why can't I just trust Al Gore? I'm a Liberal Democrat who wants to believe the guy I voted for so long ago(NOT geologically tho!). I'd like to trust the UN & their climate change advisory panel too. I want to believe! But I still smell a rat.
Spongerian Dec 13, 2010 Rating: 2
I'd agree with you if it weren't for the magnitude of the rise in atmospheric CO2 over such a short period of time. We're the only thing that has really changed during this rise. Yes, Milankovitch cycles, mountain building and (carbonate) weathering cycles, solar cycles, the position of tectonic plates wrt solar insolation, large scale volcanism, these will all have long term effects on climate. But we know the amount that they are likely to contribute right now, even if it isn't precise, and it doesn't account for the CO2 conc rises. I'm an ex-oil man. I worked on the North Sea platforms searching for oil & gas during the 1990s. I've helped find, design and build coal mines. I've managed open pit mines. All of the time believing that I was using my skills and knowledge for the best of civilisation. I haven't changed my mind but have since changed my track, though not so far as I call myself either a green or an environmentalist. Most sedimentary geology is prima facie evidence of either sea-level or climate change, so the geologist in me has no problem with the processes its just a bit of a shock being told that it me that is driving those in my own small way. I can't write in a few words anything to convince anyone else to change their own minds. I wouldn't want to try. It was a decade-long process for me that involved going back to college to get a second Masters to make sure that I wasn't being played for a fool. I don't believe that I am and while the science is never going to be laid out in a 'cause and effect' manner because it is all to do with probabilities, I believe that the overwhealing probability is that man has had, and will continue to have, an impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Quite what that means is another question entirely. The Earth is a complex system that we don't fully understand and I am with you on being sceptical about the tales of Apocalypse. However if it were a race that I could put money on I would place a small wager at the highest odds that I could find that our generations will see some temperature rise attributable to our own actions. I wouldn't bet the house on it, but I would try gauge the bet so as to cover the costs of moving to somewhere on higher ground ;) Whether the weather will result in 'good' or 'bad' on a global scale I couldn't say because all the atmospheric models currently doing the calculations on what will happen to climate in the future don't include human ingenuity as a factor. I think there are much better reasons to shift big bits of our economies, like the energy industry, to low carbon energy sources. We don't need to invoke heat death and terrify the world into inaction.
Coelacanth Dec 12, 2010 Rating: -1
I hope Soutie finds that description and link as compelling as I do Spongerian. He may choose to express his appreciation differently though. Not many can see the world in a grain of sand. I'd like to get your take sometime on how atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are linked past and present(and future?)to the calcium carbonate in seawater, shells, sand, sandstone, limestone, coral, etc. I don't want to be...but I still am...a 'global-warming-caused-by-man-made-carbon dioxide' sceptic. Natural solar(and other)cycles still make more sense to me...from what I've read so far.
Spongerian Dec 9, 2010 Rating: 2
Back from business trip. Sand is a size descriptor in geology and engineering not a composition descriptor. So you can have all sorts of natural sands; shell sand, quartz sand, (my personal fav for its crunchiness and the water quality that you find over it) feldspar sand, coral sand, garnet sand, coal sand etc, etc. You can even have man-made glass sand and plastic sand if that's what floats your boat. The actual size definition depends on the application; 'sand' for a civil engineer tends to be smaller than 'sand' for a geologist who will use the term for particles up to about 2 inches in diameter. Bigger than that and rock particles are called cobbles. This site is even more dull than my description of something that can be really beautiful whether it be crunching between your toes or blowing along a beach. http://www.sandcollectors.org/What_is_Sandx.html
Coelacanth Nov 27, 2010 Rating: -1
Only if you like to get small.
soutie Nov 27, 2010 Rating: -1
are there massive grains of sand?
soutie Nov 23, 2010 Rating: -1
Spongerian Nov 23, 2010 Rating: -1
Yes, indeed it is a little rock and the building block of many bigger rocks.
Coelacanth Nov 20, 2010 Rating: 0
It's sedimentary my dear wot one!
soutie Nov 20, 2010 Rating: -1
is a grain of sand a tiny rock?
Spongerian Nov 18, 2010 Rating: 2
That's be the four dimensional thinking sticking its oar in. I'm a geologist so when I see a depositional environment, such as a shallow intertidal like this, I tend to see its past, present and future. You too can be just as screwed up. All it takes is 5 years at uni and 10+ working with rocks.
soutie Nov 18, 2010 Rating: -1
not the word skills (though not too shabby), but the ability to see individual sand grains moving in the photo.
Spongerian Nov 17, 2010 Rating: 1
I'm glad that my cunning linguistics meets your approval Monsieur Guignol.
soutie Nov 17, 2010 Rating: 2
wot are you on? i want some.
soutie Nov 16, 2010 Rating: -1
this puts paid to "the earth is flat" theorists.
kendaddy Nov 16, 2010 Rating: -1
Scott Nov 16, 2010 Rating: -1
quite the coolest thing on magicseaweed atm :)
swwl Nov 16, 2010 Rating: 1
Is it night / day - snow / sand - earth / mars.... amazing photo as are all your photos ! completely new take on beach/surf photos - print on demand needed...Thought initially it was photoshop gone mad, then realised your just very good.
Spoogy Nov 17, 2010 Rating: -1
yeah man truly another world... just amazing photography at work! keep it coming.