I've tried to solve for the Earth's nearly-diurnal free wobble, but it yielded a map that looked suspiciously like the mass trend. I think this happens because the NDFW's frequency is similar to that of the K1 tide, which experiences aliasing in the GRACE data as discussed in section 4.4 of my 2011 paper. So... no.

Other satellites noticed Greenland's extensive surface melt because melting snow lowers the ice sheet's albedo. However, water has the same mass as a liquid or solid, so GRACE can't tell the difference between ice and meltwater. GRACE can measure how much meltwater flows into the ocean, because in that case there would be less mass on Greenland.

Also, Ambitwistor referred to the popular monthly GRACE fields, which are available as spherical harmonics and gridded fields. In addition, CNES produces 10 day solutions, and Bonn even produces (constrained) daily solutions. But the monthly fields are by far the most widely used, because the ground track coverage is more complete during a month, and the extra data increases their signal to noise ratios.

As I explained in that link, the Earth's rotational kinetic energy is currently decreasing at ~3.8 TW. (Just to compare, the world used 15 TW in 2008.) But anyone who clicked on that link would learn that only ~3% of the lost ~3.8 TW goes into raising the moon's orbit. As Pete Bender pointed out, the other ~97% is converted to heat in the oceans and the core-mantle boundary layer. Because this percentage isn't necessarily fixed, it's very difficult to predict exactly how much faster the moon would ascend from the Earth.

(Apparently I already answered so many questions that the Slashdot editor doesn't think the remainder will be enough for a follow-up story, so I'll try to answer them here as time permits.)

Excellent links. However, note that the first link doesn't use GRACE to detect Lense-Thirring frame dragging. It's merely using improved gravity models from GRACE to eliminate measurement noise due to imperfections in our model of Earth's static gravity field that could be mistaken as frame dragging.

No, frame dragging is only barely detectable by Gravity Probe B, which was designed specifically for that purpose. GRACE relies on highly accurate timing, which requires correcting for time dilation due to special and general relativity. Here's a reference.

GRACE measures the accelerating mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica, and tracks global water storage.

One modest example is extracting energy from the ocean tides. I've explained that harnessing tidal power would actually move the moon farther away from the Earth, even faster than its current ~3.8cm/year recession rate. Tidal amplitudes are influenced by the coastlines and bathymetry, so in principle we might eventually be able to change the tidal amplitudes in some location (bigger for more tidal power, smaller for easier navigation) by carefully modifying the bathymetry.

Just to clarify the summary, GRACE primarily studies long-term changes in water storage. It's just my research in particular that focuses on high frequency signals like ocean tides. Also, the open source code mentioned in the summary is just used to produce my personal results, not the official GRACE solutions.

-Bryan Killett, aka khayman80, aka Dumb Scientist

No, tides are caused by gravity, which is caused by mass. Solar storms are violent, but the amount of mass involved is miniscule compared to that of the Sun. A very powerful solar storm wouldn't even cause a small tidal shift.

Erm, I could point you to someone working on general relativity or quantum gravity. My analysis only uses Newtonian gravity, though special and general relativistic corrections are applied to the GRACE data before they get to me.

Yes, it was totally out of left field. I responded in an internal JPL email, and copied the email to my (other) website.

-Bryan Killett, aka khayman80, aka Dumb Scientist

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-07-16 at 11:33

Another example of cherry-picking what you reproduce here, in order to make yourself look good. You just can’t seem to resist.

After you cited an E&E paper to support the claim that sunspot cycle length is responsible for recent warming, I said: ...

You accused me of not citing my sources, and asked me to provide a peer-reviewed paper supporting my statement, implying that none existed. I did so, per your request. In fact it took me only a very short time to do so, because it was one of many.

You were not satisfied, and pointed out a flaw in the paper. This (as it turned out later) was a legitimate criticism of the paper BUT you did not cite your own sources for that. Instead, I was forced to spend time finding it myself. Which did indeed make you guilty of EXACTLY the same thing you had originally accused me of doing.

But you didn’t put those first parts here. In fact, it appears to me that most everything on this page is somewhat out of context. And I suspect that’s intentional.

I do know about “fair use”. I found it rather laughable that today, on Slashdot, you pointed me to references about libel long after I wrote that I did not intend to sue you. And in fact I stated as much in clear, concise, English, and never, at any point, wrote that I did intend to sue you.

You know very well that I did not “threaten” (your word) to sue you, so why are you linking to libel laws in association with my name? What is the point of bringing it up again in that fashion, unless it is to give readers a false and misleading impression?

Once again, I question your methods and your ethics.

I linked to libel laws in response to your comment:

This high-schooler somehow thinks he/she can protect him/her self from libel and copyright by stating on the blog that “someone” said something, while still partially quoting said “someone”. And then even including a link to the original exchange. Haha. If I were this person, and possessed some intelligence, I would shut this site down. Sadly, it is looking more like he/she is going to end up in Litigation Land. [Jane Q. Public]

You've previously said: "Dictionaries do not accurately define words, they merely list popular usage. If you want technical accuracy, consult an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. "

That's why I'm referring to technical statements like these:

In 2005, 11 national science academies signed a joint statement saying "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities ... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

In 2007, 13 national science academies signed a joint statement referencing the earlier 2005 statement, and added: "Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken. Our present energy course is not sustainable."

That's the definition of a climate change contrarian: someone who disagrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2.

Charming. As I said in my responses, I'll address your Sky Dragon misinformation when I get the time, but first I need to address some of your other misinformation to put it in context. Patience.

Oops, the previous comment used relative links that only work on Dumb Scientist. This version uses absolute links.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you.

You are a pompous ass, and you distort other peoples' statements in order to try to make yourself look good. Then you use that as a self-advertisement to try to bolster your reputation as a "scientist". When in fact all it proves is... you are a pompous ass.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a pseudonym, then I would have. And in fact I would have. And I would have made it stick. The evidence is both blatant and public.

You can play that down all you like, but the fact is that your own online behavior has been less than stellar, in both an ethical and a legal sense. And that is a bit of an understatement.

Nevertheless, while I still think you behaved poorly, we did have an interesting and educational exchange. And no matter how arrogant and insulting you were being, you remained polite... which is something, at least. Not much, but it's the only compliment I have to give.

In any case, to everyone else: Again I urge readers to follow the actual links and see the actual exchange, rather than accept the surface claims here. Your opinions and conclusions are of course your own. But if you read the actual exchanges I think many of you will end up disagreeing with statements made above by khayman80.

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

Here's that exchange. I still think it wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether I think you're even capable of scientific fraud. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 10:07

So in exactly the same spirit as he claims to have "quoted" my comments, I offer you this, which is no more out of context than anything he has stated.

But again: dear readers, I urge you to look at the actual exchanges between me an "khayman80", and judge for yourselves whether I was being unreasonable. I make no claims: your judgment is your own.

Thanks for the charmingly-named "asshole-pseudo-scientist.png" screenshot. It's interesting that less than two hours after you noted that I had the integrity to link to the originals, you made a screenshot without a link to the originals and claimed it was "in exactly the same spirit" and "no more out of context than anything he has stated." Here's the exchange pictured in that screenshot, complete with links to the originals. I still think they waste my readers' time. But like you said, they can judge for themselves whether you were being unreasonable. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 10:32

Re: "khayman80":

If the guy had simply asked, I would have said "Sure, go for it. As long as you include the context.".

He did neither.

Here's where I informed you that I'd be copying my comments to Dumb Scientist; you replied but didn't object. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 10:56

And finally (barring unforeseen circumstances this WILL be the last):

The later replies by "khayman80", in the Slashdot threads, were not answered. And they were not answered for 2 reasons: (1) He had demonstrated bad faith in his discussions, and (2) I told him I would no longer answer him.

That does not mean that I did not have answers.

Let's find out. I'll debunk LINK LATER more of your misinformation, and posterity will see if you actually do have answers.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 11:23

Haha... okay, unforeseen circumstance:

This high-schooler somehow thinks he/she can protect him/her self from libel and copyright by stating on the blog that "someone" said something, while still partially quoting said "someone". And then even including a link to the original exchange.

Haha. If I were this person, and possessed some intelligence, I would shut this site down. Sadly, it is looking more like he/she is going to end up in Litigation Land.

... you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat". Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you. ... As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice. I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a pseudonym, then I would have. And in fact I would have. And I would have made it stick. The evidence is both blatant and public. You can play that down all you like, but the fact is that your own online behavior has been less than stellar, in both an ethical and a legal sense. And that is a bit of an understatement. ... This high-schooler somehow thinks he/she can protect him/her self from libel and copyright by stating on the blog that "someone" said something, while still partially quoting said "someone". And then even including a link to the original exchange. Haha. If I were this person, and possessed some intelligence, I would shut this site down. Sadly, it is looking more like he/she is going to end up in Litigation Land. [Jane Q. Public]

Your use of the word "libel" is ironic, but not terribly surpr ising. I didn't change your pseudonym to "Someone" to protect myself from libel and copyright issues, because I've done nothing wrong. The actual reason I paraphrased you was because I naively believed that climate change contrarians could be persuaded that the scientific community isn't ridiculously incompetent, lying, or conspiring to suppress them. I stupidly thought that appeasing your absurd demands might prompt you to spend more time studying climate science and less time ranting about how badly you think you've been mistreated. Sadly, I was wrong. Even sadder, you'll probably continue ranting about how distorted and cherry-picked your quotes are here, even after I've copied many of the exchanges you urged people to read in their entirety. If you put even 1% of this effort into taking accredited climate physics classes...

Anyway, before you waste money hiring a lawyer, you might want to look up libel and copyright. Pay careful attention to the four factors determining "fair use". Comments made in public without being charged for (e.g. Slashdot) are generally subject to fair use. Perhaps you could learn from "Jane Q. Public", who made a similar point last year:

... it is generally considered to be "fair use" to record something that is happening in public and not being charged for. There is a gray area, to be sure, but I think political speeches rightfully belong on the "fair use" side of the line. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-08-29]

... There is no justice involved in trying to hold a copyright on a speech that was given in PUBLIC, and broadcast to the public, almost 5 decades ago. ... I think we have to draw the line and say that public political speech, that wasn't done as a "performance" for profit, is public domain. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-08-29,30]