Do Antarctic research stations use any of the local resources, like water, or is everything flown in?

The Australian and Belgian Antarctic research stations use local resources for their respective water supplies.

Australia operates a number of stations. In the past, snow was melted but currently local melt water is processed and used. However, the Australian base, Casey, also melts ice and the Mawson base also melts snow.

  Getting freshwater in Antarctica is quite difficult and time consuming. The exact method used varies between stations. In earlier days, snow and ice was shovelled into large tanks and heated to form water. Today, Casey and Mawson pump water from a melt lake behind the station and store it in a heated tank house.
  Davis draws water from a local tarn which is processed by a Reverse Osmosis System which produces about 18,000 litres each 24 hours. The average station demand is around 10,000 – 14,000 litres a day. Macquarie Island draws water from a dam located about three kilometres from the station on the plateau and 200 metres above sea level. The water is pumped to two holding tanks.

Water saving appliances are installed wherever possible, but each person on station is asked to use as little water as possible.

Expeditioners are limited to three minute showers and, when water supplies are short, to only shower every second or third day. Other water saving measures are also followed, such as doing one large load of washing rather than several smaller loads, and turning off the taps while cleaning your teeth.

The Belgian, Princess Elisabeth base, melts snow to obtain water. The Belgians, as do bases from other countries, also use renewable sources of energy, namely, wind and solar, via wind generators and solar panels. The Australian base at Mawson has two wind generators that supply 95 percent of the stations energy requirements

The US base at Mc Murdo, operated a nuclear reactor for electricity generation, for 10 years, until 1972. It produce over 78 MWh or electricity and 13 million gallons (49.21 ML) of fresh water.

Diesel generators still produce much of the electricity used at Antarctic stations.

The French base, Dumont d'Urville, obtains fresh water by desalinating sea water.

Food is delivered to all the stations from outside because the Antarctic Treaty, bans the eating of anything originating from the continent. This prevents fishing and eating seals or penguins, or any other fauna or flora.

Waste water from bases is treated before being discharged.

The mining of minerals and the exploitation of oil and gas from Antarctica is still banned.


How do we know that we are NOT in an "Ice Age?"

I think you're slightly confused by some of the terminology. (Caveat: I'm a geophysist, take anything I say with a grain of salt!)

We're currently in an interglacial during a prolonged period of icehouse climate (most of the Cenozoic).

During most of the Earth's history, the overall climate tends to be much warmer and more stable on the million-year scale. These periods are referred to as "greenhouse" climates.  During these times, there's relatively little evidence for extensive ice sheets (either on continents or over the ocean) at the poles.

However, during times of "icehouse" climate, the Earth becomes cooler.  Ice masses develop at the poles and due to regular preturbations in Earth's orbit (Milankovich cycles), continental ice sheets tend to advance and retreat.  (Assuming there are continents near the poles.)  This leads to regular glacial and interglacial periods.

Presumably, regular fluctuations in climate due to Milankovich cycles would occur during periods of greenhouse climate.  However, ice sheets cause positive feedback that amplifies the effect of the Milankovich cycles.  This is largely due to ice and snow's albedo: they reflect more sunlight back into space instead of adsorbing it.  Therefore greenhouse Milankovich cycles were probably smaller.  (There's probably a lot more to the story. I'm not an ideal person to ask.)


How to measure stretching direction on chocolate-tablet boudins?

If you can't get a macroscopic sense of lineation, try microscopic measurement  (thin sections along the supposed plane principal stresses) and transfer them in macro. The Techniques of Modern Structural Geology: Strain Analyses Vol I would be very useful for reference.


Probability distribution of fault throw displacement and height limiting mechanisms

This is a very interesting question, and one that many people have explored. It's also a very complex question, as geology is inherently complex. A complete answer would probably require you attending a semester or mores worth of structural geology lectures, so below is only a very brief introduction.

To answer the first part of your question, there is a general consensus that fault-throw is proportional to fault length, which can be modelled by a power-law relationship. The paper presented by Joe Kington is very useful. Another paper which may be of interest is Kolyukhin, D., and A. Torabi (2012), Statistical analysis of the relationships between faults attributes, J. Geophys. Res., 117, B05406, doi:10.1029/2011JB008880.
They show that fault throw is proportional to fault length, fault type (e.g. normal, reverse/thrust) and rheology of the rock and fault zone. So to get an understanding of the probability distribution of fault-throw, you would have to explore the effects that these variables have. I couldn't find papers that explicitly deal with fault-throw probability distribution (they mainly look at predictive models and reasons), so unfortunately cannot help in giving a precise answer.

The second part of your question seems to deal with ways that stress (pressure caused by whatever: tectonic plates moving around, magma moving around, things moving downslope under force of gravity, etc) is accommodated by some Earth response, generally either faulting or magma emplacement. Take a look at the Andersonian theory of faulting to get an understanding of how different stress regimes (in what direction is the prinicipal stress oriented) effect creation/reactivation of faults. This theory will give you some insight into how the Earth accommodates stresses by extending/shortening. The direction and magnitude of faults is explained by the interplay of different stress components. When you were talking about free-fall, I assume that you mean gravity, which is generally reformed as overburden stress, which is an important stress component.

Magma can accommodate stress (as well as induce it!). Take a look at examples from the East African rift system around Afar. Here the fault-throw versus length relationships mentioned above do not hold, because introduction of magma into the area reduces the need for the rock to extend/stretch in the horizontal and shorten in the vertical directions. I don't have any papers on hand, but the examples are very interesting.


Can a hurricane with different spinning direction be formed accidently?

No, a small vortex in a contrary rotation might develop into something larger if conditions were right, and there was no horizontal shear, but it wouldn't last long. The Coriolis force would work against it, and it would fizzle out.

Also, hurricanes don't form near the equator - there isn't enough horizontal rotation to kick-start it. Hurricanes initiate a little to the north or south of the equator.


How can I account for rainfall effects on air pollution?

Sounds like you want a dataset that is unadjusted for rainfall.  I'm not sure what you have to gain from that, but there are ways to do it.  One way to do this would be to find the inverse correlation between rain and black carbon concentrations, and extrapolate to zero rainfall.  Or, if you have any months that have zero rainfall, you could use that for other months where temperature is similar (thus the mixing layer should be similar).  This would all need to be done for each location separately, so that source contributions weren't mixed up.


What is meant by phase-change in mantle?

I'd like to add to Gordon's answer. A phase change in this context does not only refer to the change in the state of matter (e.g. liquid to solid) but a change in different solid states as well.

Olivine, $\ce{(Mg,Fe)2SiO4}$, is the stable magnesian silicate in pressures down to those prevailing at a depth of ~410 km below the surface of the Earth. As the mantle is mostly made out of magnesium, silicon and oxygen, this mineral is one of the dominant phases (or minerals) down there. But what happens below 410 km? Using geophysical methods, we know that something changes in the properties of the bulk mantle:

There are "jumps" in the densities and seismic velocities. From experimental work, we know that olivine changes to wadsleyite and ringwoodite at these pressures. Both wadsleyite and ringwoodite are chemically similar to olivine, their composition is also $\ce{(Mg,Fe)2SiO4}$. However, because of the high pressure, their structure changes from the olivine structure to a denser, more compact spinel structure. Note that this is not spinel the mineral ($\ce{MgAl2O4}$), but rather the olivine composition with the ions arranged the same way the ions are arranged in spinel.

At 660 km, the "spinel"-olivine changes to "perovskite"-olivine, causing the second discontinuity. This perovskite is not the mineral perovskite ($\ce{CaTiO3}$), but rather a magnesium silicate with the perovskite structure ($\ce{(Mg,Fe)SiO3}$). Here's a summary of the phases (i.e. minerals) you find in the Earth's mantle:

Both figures are taken from this excellent Uni Münster website, where you can see the high-res figures and read some more about it.


What would be the correct terminology for soft cover on crust?

what is the correct term for the complete soft-layer on Earth?

Sediments.

  Is there any term for part-of skin-of-Earth which is beneath water?

Marine sediments.

  The soft cover is probably not being considered as Crust

It is definitely part of the crust. When discussing mantle-crust issues, then crust is usually in the context of crystalline rocks, but it depends on context.

  But it is not clear to me : exact how-much portion is being called pedosphere? Is it the whole skin of Earth (including underwater-depositions)?

Pedosphere refers to terrestrial soil and sediments, and it usually discussed in context with other "spheres" such as atmosphere and lithosphere. Sediments (and marine sediments) is a neutral term.

As always, in Earth Sciences, there are several terms for the same thing. There is no "correct" term, just "better" when discussing said thing in various circles.


Are the water year/hydrological year different around the world?

The water year does vary depending on the region, for example in Australia the water year begins on July 1. I am not sure about other regions, I believe the October 1st water year is quite standard across the northern hemisphere although may shift as you go far north to polar and more arid climates. I would recommend searching for similar links to the one for Australia to find the government defined water year, if it exists in your region of interest.

The purpose of the water year is to use, in lamens terms, the least exciting hydrologic time of year to avoid missing large events or fluxes based on the start time of simulation or data consideration, so depending on the annual hydrologic patterns in the given region shifting the water year start generally makes sense. For this reason as well, the calendar year is generally a bad idea for hydrologic models or data considerations, since you are then starting during a time of accumulated snowpack and can have mid-winter melts around that time (at least in the northern hemisphere, generally speaking).


How much would a nine inch slice of the Earth's inner core weigh?

An oddly specific question, but quite straightforward to calculate. Let's start by calculating the volume of your slice. I'm taking values for the inner core's physical characteristics from this Wikipedia page.

9 inches is ~0.229 m.
Radius of inner core: 1.21e6 m

We'll approximate your slice as a cylinder: even if we imagine the inner core is a textbook sphere down to the centimetre scale, its curvature would be miniscule over such a thin slice.

$\pi \times  (1.21 \times 10^6)^2 \times 0.229 \approx 1.05 \times 10^{12} \,\,\mathrm{m^3}$

So the volume of your slice is around a trillion cubic metres -- about one-fifth of a Lake Michigan, if Wikipedia is to be believed. Now we just need to turn this into a mass:

Density of inner core: 12800 kg/m³

$12800 \times 1.05 \times 10^{12} \approx 1.348 \times 10^{16}\,\,\mathrm{kg}$

So, roughly 13 trillion metric tonnes.

As jamesqf points out in a comment, this calculation just takes an estimated average density for the inner core, and assumes that this is the constant density throughout. In reality, the density increases with depth. Kennett (1998) gives a model for this density gradient.

The inner core is represented by the line section on the bottom right, below the horizontal discontinuity. Eyeballing the graph seems to imply a slightly higher average density than the estimate I pulled from Wikipedia (maybe around 1.3e4 kg/m³), varying by roughly 300 kg/m³ from the inner-core boundary to the centre. The Wikipedia estimate (for which they cite Hazeltt et al. (2006), p. 346) is actually 12,600–13,000 kg/m³ (I just took the mean for my calculation), so I suspect that uncertainties in the overall density values would swamp the inaccuracy introduced by my naïve, constant-density simplification. It's likely that a more reliable characterization of inner core density has been published since 2006; finding it and performing the requisite integration is left as an exercise for the reader ;-).

References

James S. Hazlett, Monroe, R. and Wicander, R. (2006). Physical geology: exploring the Earth (6. ed.). Belmont: Thomson. ISBN 9780495011484.

B. L. N. Kennett; On the density distribution within the Earth, Geophysical Journal International, Volume 132, Issue 2, 1 February 1998, Pages 374–382, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-246x.1998.00451.x


Where are these volcanos as seen in this space tweet?

This was taken looking from around above or near Western Australia, looking north. You can see a fuzzy green patch to the centre and left of the photo. That's the eastern part of Java.

Here's the image where I labelled some of the volcanoes, and a reference image from Google Earth.


What is the highest balloons possible in a chain?

It would certainly be possible to construct a series of balloons that reached neutral buoyancy at different altitudes, so in that sense the answer is "yes".

I'm not sure whether there's necessarily any correlation between balloon size and altitude, except in that a given balloon will expand as it rises.


Judging wind speed based on flags and inland-water observations

I would call that about a force 3. But be aware that one of the problems near shore is that the shoreline, buildings, and topography have a large effect on the local winds - both direction and speed. Also fetch makes a difference - waves don't have enough time/space to build to their full size without sufficient fetch. Not the case in your video but it is difficult to evaluate waves when looking downwind because you see the less-steep backs of the waves and maybe only the tips of the whitecaps.

Sea kayakers have some decent resources for estimating winds near-shore because most kayakers spend the majority of their time in that environment. Here is one example.


Kriging IS gridless. In fact Kriging and RBF are formally equivalent. The reason kriging tends to used on grids is more historical in the oil industry than anything else. The original papers in geostats made no mention of grids. They became popular in the oil industry because a) Flow simulation is generally done on a grid  b) upscaling is non linear (so the linear kriging change of support that was developed for mining was not applicable)..and modelling on a fine grid with flow based upscaling became the norm. c) People were more interested in simulations than estimations...and upscaling becomes even more important in this case


What is the significance of the "super historic" rainfall for July 2015 in southern California?

This event is "super historic" only because of its proximity to the coast.  It is fairly common to get flash flooding in the mountains and deserts of Socal at least a few times each summer, due to the Southwest Monsoon.  This event was different in that a dying tropical system moving north off of the coast of Mexico interacted with a trough off of the Northern California coast.  The combination of these two essentially funneled tropical moisture north directly into the coastal regions of Southern California.

Linking single events to long term global change is virtually impossible to do reliably, so I won't speculate. However one could argue that rising sea surface temperatures could allow tropical systems to stay more organized near Southern California, and increase the probability of events like this. But again, it is never a good idea to try and link a localized extreme event with a global phenomenon.

In terms of drought relief and reservoir storage these rains have virtually zero impact.  They impacted the southern third of California, while the majority of water storage is in the central and northern part of the state along the Sierras. The rain came down pretty quick and didn't soak in to any of the soils, so vegetation will still be just as dry as before the rain. California needs heavy snows in the Sierras for any serious drought relief. Although these rains have given many people a false sense of security.


Temperature Advection using finite differences with gridded data

When I look at problems like these I first check to see if there is a well tested and well documented implementation already rather than reinventing the wheel.  In this case MetPy temperature advection is a well tested software that does many of the things meteorologists want including calculating finite differences with the right map scale factors. Since you are using Python I would at least look at their implementation first and correct your code even if you are not going to use their code.

Please do this first and validate your data before you attempt any downscaling operation.

And finally AtmosphericPrisonEscape is correct. If you are using lat,lon grid and calculating finite differences you need to include map scale factors. And if you are using global grids the finite differences will not work at the poles. If you are using regional grids that is not a problem. Please include as much  detail as possible when you ask a computational question.


Is the weather of Miami, Florida and the weather of Lagos, Nigeria the same

Lagos experiences a tropical savanna and Miami a tropical monsoon climate. Rainfall and temperature are indeed not too different in the two cities but - as their different climate classifications imply - the annual cycles as well as the underlying drivers in these respects do differ (Figs. 1,2).
Although located in the Northern Hemisphere, temperature in Lagos is lowest in summer when the Intertropical Convergent Zone (ITCZ) migrates over the region and the associated cloud cover effectively blocks sunlight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Nigeria#Temperature). The rainfall annual cycle is again dictated by the seasonal evolution and latitudinal migrations of the ITCZ.
A more typical temperature annual cycle is evident in Miami with a maximum in summer. Rainfall in Miami exhibits peaks in June and September (as in Lagos; interestingly) mostly associated with the formation of thunderstorms that are driven by large summer insolation (leading to unstable air), moisture supply, and the favorable interaction between the subtropical high and the local sea breezes (https://www.weather.gov/tbw/Thunderstorm_Climatology).

Fig. 1: Annual cycle of rainfall (bars) and daily min/max temperature (blue/red lines) in Lagos, Nigeria (https://worldweather.wmo.int/en/city.html?cityId=258)

Fig. 2: As in Fig. 1, but for Miami, USA (https://worldweather.wmo.int/en/city.html?cityId=267)


How spatial resolution of a NWP model works?

Yes, the deterministic GFS model (one model) has higher spatial resolution than the GEFS models (31 models). That is, that the latitude and longitude of the entire world is incremented by 0.25° in the GFS and 0.5° in the GEFS (they upgraded both in the past two years). When people say "high resolution," think of it like "more pixels" on a video (like 1080p).
On a more technical note, the GFS's (internal) resolution was once described as T-numbers, which counts the number of waves that can be fitted. The GFS could fit 1534 waves. However, since the upgrade in the dynamical core, the resolution has taken a different number. I don't exactly know the physical interpretation of the C-number, but the GEFS's C-number is currently C384 (my guess is that it is the number of cubes on one face of the cubed sphere).


Is non-randomly-sampled historical data representative?

Samples don't need to be random to be valid, it helps but it is not essential especially if exhaustive, consistent, and has a large sample size, especially when dealing with observational studies. Representative sample is different than random sample. Remember we are not trying to attain the global temperature to the highest degree of accuracy in one instant, we are trying to measure the change in temperature over a long span of time. Thus consistency in location is more important than randomizing location.

The fact that the sampling points do not move is essential, we know temperature is affected by regional conditions if the samples were re-randomized(moved) with every measurement it would make it less accurate not more. Remember what is being measured, the change, because the sampling points are not moved the the change will be accurate because it essentially becomes a stratified sample. If I am measuring changes in engine temperature for instance I don not want to measure at a different point each time, as long as the points(locations) are consistent the sample will retain high accuracy. A random sampling would be LESS accurate because it would invite confounding because we know the distribution of temperature across the engine (or globe) is not random. Any shift in location between measurements would invite confounding data. Almost no science uses a truly random samples, it's just not possible. Consider things like exhaustive sampling, cluster sampling, stratified sampling, and systematic sampling all are used more often than true random sampling and each is more accurate than random in the right circumstances.

Consider an example, say you are trying to measure the temperature change in an engine over time. Where on the engine I attach my sensors does not matter as long as I do not move them, especially if I put many sensors on it. I could put thirty sensors all on the left side engine, and it would measure the change in temperature very accurately, compared to moving the sensors between every measurement. Don't fall for the perfect solution fallacy. Also remember this is an observational/descriptive study by its very nature.

Each point on the map is more like a repetition, the real independent is the time at which they are sampled, which is either stratified or clustered depending on which study you refer too. Note that multiple sets of data points are also compared. NOAA, BEST, etc. are each independent data sets that can be compared, and show the same pattern.

High and low are used for measurements because that is all that was recorded in the oldest measurements, so changing the format would require throwing out all that data, drastically shortening the sample size (loosing more than half the time span). In this case the accuracy gained by the much larger number of samples is more than would be gained by a random or grid location. Random is rarely possible with historic data which is why the size and consistency of the data set is so important. The nice thing is these are also compared to other sampling methods on other time scales to test to see if they show the same pattern. Historic scientists are aware of the limitations of their data which is why independent verification is so important.

Now consider ice core data, I was surprised when you said surface temperature was the most used, I see ice core data far more often, because it records a much longer span of time, and records other things (like $CO_{2}$ content) as well. Again each core is a repetition and the core can be sampled in a random or stratified way, stratified is the most common because it is more exhaustive in a core sample. Ice cores are also compared to ice cores for m other locations.

Another consideration is cross-comparison, that is the use of multiple independent forms of measure, ice core compared to satellite, compared to surface, etc. Dozens of different forms of measurements/experiments are compared and show the same pattern.

This is probably one of the best overviews of the science I have seen. It is a little old (2013) so if anyone has seen a more recent version I would love to use it instead.


Does Xenon really covalently bond to oxygen within quartz?

Not sure this is appropriate for Earth Science SE (Chemistry SE would be a better fit), but the answer is "maybe".  quoting from the same Wikipedia article:

Three oxides of xenon are known: xenon trioxide ($\small\mathsf{XeO_3)}$ and xenon
tetroxide $\small\mathsf{(XeO_4)}$, both of which are dangerously explosive and powerful
oxidizing agents, and xenon dioxide $\small\mathsf{(XeO_2)}$, which was reported in
2011 with a coordination number of four.[97] $\small\mathsf{XeO_2}$ forms when xenon
tetrafluoride is poured over ice. Its crystal structure may allow it
to replace silicon in silicate minerals.[98] The $\small\mathsf{XeOO^+}$ cation has
been identified by infrared spectroscopy in solid argon.[99]

Cited references
97.
Bell, C.F. (2013). Syntheses and Physical Studies of Inorganic Compounds. Elsevier Science. p. 143. ISBN 9781483280608.
98.
Cockett, A.H.; Smith, K.C.; Bartlett, N. (2013). The Chemistry of the Monatomic Gases: Pergamon Texts in Inorganic Chemistry. Elsevier Science. p. 292. ISBN 9781483157368.
99.
Brock, D.S.; Schrobilgen, G.J. (2011). "Synthesis of the missing oxide of xenon, XeO2, and its implications for earth's missing xenon". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 133 (16): 6265–9. doi:10.1021/ja110618g. PMID 21341650.
Evidence is given in Crepisson et al (2019) for xenon (as $\small\mathsf{XeO_2}$) incorporation into silica at high pressure.  XRD measurements show changes in the lattice consistent with xenon substituting for silicon in the oxide structure.


Does this optical phenomenon have a name?

It appears from your picture that there is some mist above the lake surface. The phenomenon will be due to the same mechanism that causes conventional rainbows. The angles between the sun, the mist/cloud, and the observer will be identical but you will only see this with the sun low in the sky since the mist is near the water. That will also make the rainbow appear to be floating on the water surface (great photo, btw). I think the dark background of the trees helps make the colours more intense. The low sun means that the spectrum can be seen on either side and behind the observer. So you are correct that it will form a triangle around you. If I'm visualizing things properly, in your photo the sun would be to your right - on the violet side of the rainbow.

I am not aware of any distinct name for this, possibly because it is not really different from a rainbow from a scientific perspective or because too few scientists are awake at 4 AM.


How did CO₂ originate on Earth before there was life?

The answer is Volcanos. There might be other inorganic processes capable to produce $\text{CO}_2$, but on Earth, the main inorganic source of $\text{CO}_2$ are volcanoes.

In some period of Earth's history, there is evidence of large glaciations events, some of them are thought to have been triggered by the lack of $\text{CO}_2$ (like the Snowball Earth and Permo-carboniferous glaciations), and volcanoes are with no doubt the main candidate to have been responsible of restoring the warm climate by feeding large amounts of $\text{CO}_2$ into the atmosphere over millions of years.

$\text{CO}_2$ is an important component of rocky planets, but it is mostly dissolved (in large quantities) in the magma that exist (or once existed) in the interior of such planets. However, when the magma rises close to the surface, the drop in pressure reduce the solubility of $\text{CO}_2$ and it form bubbles of gaseous $\text{CO}_2$, that can then be expelled into the atmosphere trough volcanic eruptions, that in addition to teprha, and rocks include large amounts of volcanic gases of which $\text{CO}_2$ is one of the main components.
Probably that process of exsolution of $\text{CO}_2$ from hot molten rocks was happening even before the existence of volcanoes as we know them.

The same process happened once in Mars and Venus, whose atmospheres are composed mostly by $\text{CO}_2$ (96% and 96.5% respectively), suggesting that abundant $\text{CO}_2$ was also present in the early Earth's atmosphere.

Currently, it is estimated that volcanoes input to the atmosphere about 100 million tons of carbon in average per year in the form of $\text{CO}_2$, as illustrated by this NASA figure of the Carbon cycle:

(Originally from here)

You can see that many processes move carbon around, but the main reservoir by far is the crust, and that reservoir is tiny compared with all the $\text{CO}_2$ stored deeper in the Earth's interior.

Finally, in addition to be required by photosynthesis, $\text{CO}_2$ is part of the Earth's thermostat, that together with the silicate weathering have been key to keep the Earth's temperature in the range of liquid water. Arguably another very important need for the existence of life as we know it.


How can I normalize this chemical analysis to a mineral with 3 cations?

The first step I did was divide each wt% by their molecular weights to get a molecular proportion:

Actually that's not what you did. What you did is how much moles of each oxide you have assuming 100 grams of mineral. But that's less important now.

You are mostly correct in your steps.
Eventually you have 0.972 Fe, 0.375 Ti, and 0.972 + 2×0.375 = 1.722 O.
The (non normalised) mineral formula is then:
Fe0.972Ti0.375O1.722.

You can easily check that it's correct using charge balance:

0.972×2 + 0.375×4 - 1.722×2 = 0

The question now is how to normalise it. Since you were asking about 3 cations, you need to multiply everything by 3/(0.972 + 0.375), giving you:

Fe2.165Ti0.835O3.835

But that's also ugly. Usually mineral formulas are normalised to round anion numbers, so let's say you multiply it all by 5/1.722 you get:

Fe2.822Ti1.089O5

which is slightly prettier.

Without having any more information on the mineral as to what's it supposed to be, you can only guess. This is what we do in EMPA analyses - we know what mineral it is and we calculate the formula according to that. If we don't, we guess and try to figure out which one it is, and then calculate according to that.

I don't know much about the question, but it could be that not all iron in the mineral is Fe2+. Some of it may be Fe3+, but analysing both is not an easy task so most iron in minerals is reported as either all FeO or all Fe2O3 regardless of what oxidation state it is actually in. So it's possible that you have (FeO + Fe2O3) = 70 wt%. If you play enough with that, you might end up with a better looking formula. Again, I don't know the question and I don't know if that is what you're supposed to do in the question.


Is the Principle of Original Horizontality a good indicator?

No, Steno's principle of original horizontality (I'll call it the POOH) is not 'safe'. It is not a useful theory.

Don't confuse it with the law of superposition (also due to Steno), which is useful. That law is, in a general sense, a foundation stone (ha!) of stratigraphy... with some caveats due to resedimentation and other processes.

Why is the POOH dodgy? On small and large scales, the concept of 'layer-cake' stratigraphy does not hold up. Indeed, it's probably rather unhelpful. Brian Romans wrote a nice essay on this subject in 52 Things... Geology (edited by me, 2014) — see the link below. In it, he refers to Bailey (1998), who described sedimentary bodies as 'lenticles' with complex 3D geometries. And you just have to look at some seismic reflection data from the continental shelf to appreciate that this principle applies to even an outwardly rather continuous environment (excerpt of a line in the Virtual Seismic Atlas):

References

Bailey, R (1998). Review: Stratigraphy, Meta-Stratigraphy, and Chaos. Terra Nova 10, 222-230. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365- 3121.1998.00192.x

Romans, B (2014). Strata are not flat. In: M Hall, ed., 52 Things You Should Know About Geology. Agile Libre, Nova Scotia, 132 pp. ISBN 978-0-9879594-2-3. Available online.


Where can I find a table of ocean temperature pressure and depth

There are several global products for temperature, salinity and pressure. The product that has been evolving for the longest is likely the World Ocean Database and World Ocean Atlas Series (https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/indprod.html) and their latest product WOA13 is very high quality (https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/woa13/). They also have the entire database of used observations.

A way to get a global database and also a way to visualize it and extract information is HydroBase.

Another fabulous product that includes global information available monthly for the period 1900 to the present is provided by the Met Office Haddley Centre. Their latest product is excellent.

If you are looking for model results, one option is to look at the global operational solutions as part of the GODAE initiative. A list of products is here. Their model products include data assimilation, which helps the model from going to far from reality. The one I am most familiar with is HYCOM, which provides global data assimilative products at 1/12 degree resolution.


What type of rock formed first on earth and which rock is the oldest?

Does look a bit like a homework question..

First rock

Igneous rocks would have formed first, obviously, although if we consider the pre-Mars-forming collision Earth, then the process of cold accretion could have initially formed metamorphic rocks at the center of the early planetoid..

And that planetoid would have to be considered sedimentary, formed out of dust particles.

So what the first rock is depends on how you define Earth, or the point at which a specific planetoid would be positively identified as Earth.

Oldest Rock

First, are we talking about the oldest identifiable mineral grain (Zircons, about 4.4 billion years old), or the oldest complete rock (Isua Greenstone Belt, Greenland, 3.8 billion years). The first may qualify as part of a sedimentary rock, the second is metamorphic - but with a volcanic original rock.

And, of course, there could well be a meteorite out there - yet to be discovered or dated - that originates from outside the solar system and is therefore older than the solar system. That would qualify as the oldest rock on the planet.


How are 'road-like passages' between Himalayan mountains formed?

It's a glacier, it this case the Baltoro Glacier in Karakoram, Pakistan. The road-like pattern is formed as the glacier slowly flows towards lower altitude from a nearby ice-cap or accumulation zone. Rocks and dirt is transported both within the ice and on the surface.

With a closer look, the surface is rarely smooth, but often deep trenches, cravasses, and meltwater channels are formed as the glacier moves. On a human timescale, the glaciers crawl slowly, but from a geological perspective they are fast.

Closeup of a glacier with crevasses. (By Roylindman at en.wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0)

Under the glacier, a U-shaped valley is formed as the glacier erode the bedrock. Depending on the dynamics of the glacier and the erosion, the glacier might also appear clean, without sediment on the surface.

Large glacier without sediments, but also with a very uneven surface due to the movements of the glacier (Wilkes Land).


Water vapor content versus specific humidity

For a study relating to rainfall, I would be inclined to look at total column water vapour (TCWV), also known as integrated water vapour (IWV) or precipitable water.  They're all (more or less) the same thing.

The company Remote Sensing Systems describes it as:

  Total column water vapor is a measure of the total gaseous water contained in a vertical column of atmosphere. It is quite different from the more familiar relative humidity, which is the amount of water vapor in air relative to the amount of water vapor the air is capable of holding. Atmospheric water vapor is the absolute amount of water dissolved in air.  When measured in linear units (millimeters, mm), it is the height (or depth) the water would occupy if the vapor were condensed into liquid and spread evenly across the column. Using the density of water, we can also report water vapor in kg/m2 = 1 mm or g/cm2 = 10 mm.

For rain to form, clouds need to form first.  Clouds need cloud condensation nuclei, but crucially, for clouds to form, the water vapour partial pressure needs to reach the saturation vapour pressure.  The latter is strongly dependent on temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron relation), so a profile of relative humidity is not the most directly useful quantity.  The total column water vapour describes how much liquid water might form, which is why it is sometimes even described as precipitable water.

You can get this product either from reanalysis (like ERA-5) or retrieved from hyperspectral infrared sounders, such as IASI, AIRS, or CrIS.  Depending on where and when in the world you're looking at, there may also exist products from geostationary instruments.


Assuming that the identification of the rock as Flint/Chert and not Limestone/Dolomite is correct I'd say it's a formation artifact rather than a fossil. What I mean is that at some point as it was forming, flint can form in two ways one is due to silica saturated water acting on limestone and the other is by direct precipitation from mineral saturated water in shallow environments, the small bead-like structures were created within or on the surface of the rock. It may be a surface impression from a fossil that was once part of a larger piece but as it is now there's no evidence of a material difference between "fossil" and the country rock of the flint. This opinion is coloured by the fact that here in New Zealand fossils in our flint are vanishingly rare, I'm not sure if that holds in England though.


Need help understanding what an "isostatic model minimizing crustal deviatoric stress" means

Isostatic means the equilibrium between the components of the crust in regards to their vertical movement owing to differences in density.

Deviatoric stress is the kinda sideways stress that particles in a larger system under stress, impose on each other. It's what keeps objects from crumbling to dust when exert vertical stress on them.

So, there model simulates the vertical stress on the crust more than it does the horizontal stresses. Enceladus is a puzzle because it's squished down at the poles much more than any other known moon or planet.


Gravitational Anomaly of a subsurface body

The gravitational anomaly (delta_g) changes linearly with the density contrast, and proportionally to the inverse square of depth. That's simply a version of the 'Universal Law of Gravitation'.
Here is an example for the anomaly created by an spherical anomalous spherical body with a density difference of delta_rho relative to the surrounding density. G is the known Gravitational Constant:

From Turcotte and Schubert, 2002, Geodynamics


How do we convert the seismic trace wavelet to zero phase which is in mixed phase?

My preferred way of doing this (I've been working in seismic data processing and analysis for over 20 years now) is:

Start with theoretical (or notional) source wavelet.
Shape the source wavelet to zero phase (or minimum phase, depending on your
application).
Design a cross-equalization filter that takes the input
from step 1 as the source and step 2 as the target. This can then be
globally applied to your data.

There are other ways to do this (like with Wiener deconvolution) that make a statistical estimate of what the wavelet should look like, and this was considered acceptable in the industry for many years. However, such statistical processes are not acceptable for all applications, such as 4D (time lapse seismic) analyses, so I prefer processes that are deterministic rather than processes that rely on a stochastic assumption.


Not a full answer as that is hard to give.  But:

This is a diagram by Kevin Trenberth picturing energy flows in the Earth climate system:

(Source: Skeptical Science)

In the hypothetical extreme case of blocking all incoming solar radiation, the Earth would — initially — have a net heat loss of roughly 340 $W m^{-2}$.

93% of net radiation change on Earth enters the oceans.  In the past 20 years, this has led to an increase in ocean heat content (OHC) of roughly $10^{23}$ J.  With a 340 W m^{-2} heat loss, undoing that would take $10^{23} J / ((340 W/m^2) * .7 * 510 * 10^6 km^2$ which is roughly 10 days.  Although this is a severe oversimplification, it does give us a first order of magnitude.

It might be possible to run a climate model and switch off the Sun, just for fun.  You don't need a heavy climate model to do so.  PlaSim is good enough to get a handle on it.

My guesstimate is that it would take a couple of months before mid-latitude oceans start to freeze.

(Source: EPA)


The cloud that you see is a mixture of solids and liquids.  The liquid is water and the solids are ice, cloud condensation nuclei and ice condensation nuclei (tiny particulates that water and ice condense on).  The invisible part of clouds that you cannot see is water vapor and dry air.  The majority of the cloud is just plain air in which the invisible water vapor is mixed with and the very tiny water drops and ice particles are suspended in.

A cloud is a mixture of gas, liquid and solids.


The most common software for creating and modifying maps is ArcGIS (commercial but you can get free trial for a month) or QGIS (open source).


What is the strength of the Earth's magnetic field at McMurdo Station, Antarctica?

According to the current World Magnetic Model 2015 v2 (new one to be released on 10 December 2019!),

Longitude: 166.6863° E
Latitude: 77.8419° S
Elevation: 10 m

Date: 2019-11-25
Declination (+E | -W):   141.5232°    (-0.1829°/yr)
Inclination (+D | -U):   -80.3929°    (0.0399°/yr)
Horizontal Intensity:     10,396.8 nT (34.7 nT/yr)
North Comp (+N | -S):     -8,139.2 nT (-6.5 nT/yr)
East Comp (+E | -W):       6,468.8 nT (47.6 nT/yr)
Vertical Comp (+D | -U): -61,423.3 nT (54.8 nT/yr)
Total Field:              62,297.0 nT (-48.3 nT/yr)

Uncertainties:  0.57°   0.22°   133 nT  138 nT  89 nT   165 nT  152 nT


Was the last glacier too hard for the Neanderthal?

First things first, the reasons for the Neandertal(N) extinction are not known definitely. There is though no evidence of violence (*).

There is an overlap in Europe of N and anatomically modern humans (AMH) of several thousand years, even if N find sites are limited to the Mousterien industry alone. This is a conservative limit because N may have used more advanced technology like blade production as well in their last millennia, which would extend N presence to ~32,000BP. Sites like Gorham's Cave fit into that picture, but this long chronology of N is debated and counterdebated :-)). Anyway, long before the last glacial maximum (~23 to 20ky BP) they were gone.

Somewhat outdated is the view that N is a cold adaptation of the human lineage. The appearance of tools for clothing (bone needles) drastically rise with the Aurignacien, the first stone tool industry linked to AMH in Europe. That of course does not mean N didn't use clothes, but that they probably had not the same proficiency as Cro Magnon & consorts in making them. Correlation of find sites and climate confirm the picture that N avoided cold climates. N populations were smaller than AMH, though not really endangered by genetic bottlenecks (there is newer work concerning Denisovans, stating they never really split from N, but i can't find it).

By now it pretty clear that N and AMH interbred on many occasions.

So why did they become extinct ? Together with other ice age megafauna in a highly stressed environment, loosing their way of subsistence ? Competition of top predators ? Inbreading nevertheless ? Dwindling numbers and simple merge with AMH ? Bad luck ? Unclear ...

(*) I want to add a remark here to the Shanidar 3 guy mentioned below. First of all, the authors do not exclude an accident. Second, the work has been criticized by Trinkaus et al. for methodological errors, as is cited here. Similar arguments apply to St. Cesaire 1 (healed skull fracture) is likely an accident, the argument for an intentional blow is too weak. I do not categorically exclude violence in the Paleolithic, the accusation is unfair, I only say there is no (undisputed) evidence. The Shanidar burials, as well e.g. La Chapelle aux Saints 1 are seen as examples for compassion for those in need of care among N. Btw.: we haven't been at the meat of that yet, but i am not handing out fuel against my argumentation ;-)

It was stated that

  "Our ancestors killed the males of other tribes and raped the few remaining females. That our ancestors killed Neandertals who looked rather different is not a far stretch from killing other anatomically modern humans who looked only slightly different."

Both claims are not backed by science, Cro Magnon and Neandertals were not that different (reconstructions Neandertal Museum, Mettmann, Germany) and normal people don't just attack others. Hunting strategies of late N and AMH in the early Aurignacien don't differ by much.

That men were killed and woman stolen happened in very isolated cases in the Neolithic and contemporary Mesolithic, and violence also becomes evident in the Epipaleolithic/Neolithic precursors ~10kyBP , in sedentary or semi-sedentary groups, but that's not the point here. Rather not did it happen in the cold steppe of oxygen isotope stage 3 in Paleolithic Europe for obvious reasons: when the loss of a hunter could endanger the whole group; and women - having one child at a time to keep up the pace of mobility - moved around with the group. At the time 40kyBP population was low, it must rather be assumed that any accidental meeting was a cause of celebration and interchange, as is reflected in the genome.


How much would weather data from ocean-going vessels improve climate research?

"Ship of opportunity" weather observations have contributed to global data collection exercises since the dawn of meteorology as a science. There are many national and international initiatives that collect data and the data already inform weather forecasts and climate models. The practice is summarised in https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00434/full
In recent years the number of ships contributing has declined, but over 2000 ships that do participate are collecting higher quality data.


Is the maximum human population carrying capacity of Earth higher or lower than the current total human population?

The FAO estimate that we use 11% of the Earth's surface area for agriculture,  and that that represents approximately a third of the land that 'could' be used (http://www.fao.org/3/y4252e/y4252e06.htm). If we accept that current agricultural production is at a level that allows the current population to live healthy lives that implies that we could triple our population and not starve.
In this very simplistic view I am ignoring the very real questions of inequity in distribution, what constitutes 'healthy' and the potential of changing efficiency in agriculture or transitioning populations away from expensive meat based diets.
However, and it's a really big however, you couldn't make that sort of increase in the area of globe used for agriculture without destroying natural ecosystems, and it's arguable that already much of global agriculture is unsustainable in it's present form, as aquifers are overexploited and soil quality degrades.


How can the Simpson Desert be the largest sand dune desert in the world?

The linked Wikipedia article has been edited after the OP's question was posted. It now says:

  The Simpson Desert is a large area of dry, red sandy plain and dunes in Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland in central Australia.1,2 It is the fourth-largest Australian desert, with an area of 176,500 km2 (68,100 sq mi).

  The desert is underlain by the Great Artesian Basin, one of the largest inland drainage areas in the world. Water from the basin rises to the surface at numerous natural springs, including Dalhousie Springs, and at bores drilled along stock routes, or during petroleum exploration. As a result of exploitation by such bores, the flow of water to springs has been steadily decreasing in recent years. It is also part of the Lake Eyre basin.

  The Simpson Desert is an erg that contains the world's longest parallel sand dunes.3 These north-south oriented dunes are static, held in position by vegetation. They vary in height from 3 metres (9.8 ft) in the west to around 30 metres (98 ft) on the eastern side. The largest dune, Nappanerica or Big Red, is 40 metres (130 ft) in height.4

  1Twidale, C.R. (1980). "The Simpson Desert, central Australia". South African Geographical Journal. 65: 3–17.

  2"Desert Parks of South Australia" (PDF). Department of Environment and Heritage, South Australia. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 July 2008. Retrieved 23 October 2008. "Simpson Desert". Britannica Encyclopedia Inc. Retrieved 23 October 2008.

  3Madigan, C.T. 1936. The Australian sand-ridge deserts. The Geographical Review 26(2):205-227.

  4Rachel Dixon (2018). Deserts & Savannahs in Australia. Redback Publishing. p. 23. ISBN 9781925630206.

It seems that the article has been corrected on 13:13, 2 September 2019 by user Casu Marzu per the article's history page

Considering the timing, this is likely to be a direct result of your question. Good work!


Why is aerodynamic resistance defined inversely?

It's partly historical, partly point-of-view, but it's not a mistake.

The friction coefficient emphasises the effect of the surface on a property of the boundary layer, i.e., greater surface friction slows the near-surface wind more.  Aerodynamic resistance emphasises the effect of the boundary layer on surface-atmosphere exchange, i.e., greater mixing yields a lower resistance to evaporation.  Note that it's evaporation not advection that's being resisted.  You could turn the confusion around and argue that friction coefficient is a counter intuitive term: if there's more friction, why does evaporation increase?  This would be making the same category error.

Historically (IIRC) the electrical circuit metaphor was introduced by Penman and Schofield (1951) in an early modification of the Penman evapotranspiration equation to account for how vegetation limits the transpiration rate.  The original Penman equation is often quoted using aerodynamic conductance (or friction velocity or friction coefficient), i.e., a quantity using the the $m s^{-1}$ units that you're used to.  This is a natural choice for micrometeorologists trying to understand the bulk mass transfer properties of the turbulent boundary layer because it can be calculated from the boundary layer quantities that they measure.

Once you start introducing other surface effects on evaporation it's not really appropriate to extend the analogy of a turbulent fluid friction velocity down from the boundary layer to vegetation stomata, roots and the soil.  So we use the electrical metaphor instead, in which case it becomes slightly simpler to describe the system using resistances rather than conductances.  In the first instance it was just a case of calculating the total system resistance by adding a stomatal resistance to the aerodynamic resistance:

$E = \frac{\rho}{r_s+r_a}\left(q_{sat} - q_a\right) = \frac{\rho}{r_t}\left(q_{sat} - q_a\right)$

You can express this as conductances, but it's not as neat:

$E = \frac{g_a g_s \rho}{g_a+g_s}\left(q_{sat} - q_a\right)$

You can see in the later slides of the presentation you linked to that these resistance networks have got progressively more complex, so nowadays this neatness point might be moot.

Penman and Schofield (1951) Some physical aspects of assimilation and transpiration, Symp. Soc. Exper. Biol., 5, 115-129.


Is this 70km crack in an ice shelf of Antarctica remarkable, or a regular occurrence?

Is an iceberg the size of Delaware [6,451 square kilometers] actually remarkable, or something that just happens from time-to-time?

In March 2000 iceberg B-15 formed which was 11,000 sq. km. and 295 km long.
In October 1998 iceberg A-38 formed which was 6,900 sq. km.
A Delaware size iceberg would be the 3rd largest in the past 20 years.
The 1990 article The calving and drift of iceberg B-9 in the Ross Sea, Antarctica Antarctic Science Vol. 2 , pages 243-257 says:

The largest iceberg in recent times
(95 km x 95 km) calved from the Larsen Ice Shelf in early 1986

So a 9000 sq. km. iceberg broke off in 1986.
Contribution of giant icebergs to the Southern Ocean freshwater flux says:

an iceberg of 10,000 km2 in area broke from the Amery ice shelf in 1964

According to Antarctica shed a 208-mile-long berg in 1956:

A record iceberg seen in Antarctic
Little America V, Antarctica, Nov. 17- The U.S.S. Glacier, the Navy's most powerful icebreaker, has sighted an iceberg more than twice the size of Connecticut.
The berg was sighted by the Glacier early this week about 150 miles west of Scott Island. The ship reported it was 60 miles wide and 208 miles long- or more than 12,000 square miles, as against Connecticut's 5,009.

So 12,000 sq. mi. or 31,000 sq. km. is the largest known iceberg.
Both of the two previous references also mention a 1927 Antarctic iceberg that was 170 km long, but area is not given.  American Practical Navigator, says the 1927 iceberg was 100 mile long and 100 miles wide, so 25,000 sq. km.
In summary, an iceberg the size of that contemplated in the OP can be expected on the once every 5-20 years time scale.
update 7/12/2017:
according to the MIDAS project:

The calving occurred sometime between Monday 10th July and Wednesday 12th July 2017, when a 5,800 square km section of Larsen C finally broke away. The iceberg, which is likely to be named A68


Reciprocal space in the context of x-ray diffraction and a crystal lattice?

The unit cell space and reciprocal space are fourier transforms of each other. The unit cell indicates the stacking space between crystal elements. The reciprocal space is a similar kind of vectorial representation of the diffracted X-rays. The following reference explains it quite well, although it is not a simple concept. Unless you are smarter than me, you may have to read it 2 or 3 times to 'get it'.

Reciprocal Lattices and Diffraction


You don't say which lake, but these are almost certainly crinoid stem fossils. Crinoids, or sea lilies, are echinoderms (relatives of starfish and sea urchins) that anchor themselves to the sea floor and feed on plankton.

In some crinoids, the animal's sea urchin-like calyx is connected to the anchor by a long stem to a holdfast which anchors it. The stem part of the crinoid's endoskeleton is a stack of calcareous rings or pentagons (called "ossicles") which look almost like a little spinal column. (However, vertebrates are not descended from crinoids, even though Echinoderms are deuterostomes, placing them closer to chordates than arthropods or molluscs).

When the animal dies, it falls into the bottom sediment and the stem can become disconnected as the sediment is compressed into limestone. Sometimes the rings stay aligned, and show assemblages like you see in your rock. Other times, all you see are disconnected rings or little pentagons, like the ones all over the rest of the rock.

Crinoids have been around since the Ordovician period
485 million years ago, so they appear in (and sometimes entirely make up) limestones throughout the world.

Source: GeoKansas

And, just because it's there, here's  a video of a crinoid crawling across the sea floor.


Why does the Northern polar vortex usually have two centers?

Northern Hemisphere

The spatial structure of the polar vortex is determined by the stationnary waves. Stationary waves in the northern hemisphere are primarily modulated by stationary (surprise!) forcings of the northern hemisphere :

Topography : Rockies and Himalayan mountains
Land-sea ocean heating contrast

This spatial pattern is mostly locked but they are slightly modulated by the seasonaly changing meridional temperature gradient and from internal chaotic processes (i.e. turbulence).

This article is a must-read and not too technical for the northern hemisphere circulation:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/134GM01/summary

vs Southern Hemisphere

When you compare such forcings between the northern and southern hemisphere, there is a big difference: much less land-sea contrast and less topographic forcing in the southern ocean. Hence, a "wavenumber one" configuration, as compared to a "wavenumber two" for the northern hemisphere.


What controls the tendency of trace elements in different particle size fractions?

Crustal elements are essentially from soil which have undergone compaction during geologic processes.  Particles are then lifted into the air (e.g. by wind) and coarse particles from the soil are suspended in the atmosphere.  If the particulate is from wildfire, it is still of "natural origin", but the particulate is from a combustion source.  Combustion creates fine particles.

Anthropogenic particulate emissions are dominated by combustion sources, because so much of our industry and energy production uses combustible fuels.  Combustion creates fine particles.  However, there are still several anthropogenic sources that create coarse particulate (e.g. road dust, construction dust, agricultural processes, etc.).


Can relative humidity be over 100% near (within 30-60m) the surface?

It is reasonable to assume that air (atmosphere) acting as as a solution could become supersaturated with water vapor.  Supersaturation condition is where the air literally contains more water vapor than is needed to cause saturation. How common these conditions might be, I do not know.


Is an Earthquake Large Enough to Cripple the Entire West Coast of North America Possible?

Never say never, but it's unlikely.
Every geological fault is not uniform. There are bumps and snags of varying size and strength along its three intentional surfaces. As once fault surface moves over the other some of the snags can break off resulting in localized quakes at the site of the breakages.
Similarly, for very strong, robust snags (protuberances) which ride over the other surface as they suddenly hit a dimple in the other surface or simply just ride along another surface protuberance on the surface of the other side of the fault it slams into the other surface. This causes another form of localized earthquake.
For an earthquake to hit the entire north west region of the US, these type of events would have to occurs along the entire length of the fault simultaneously.


Why is this area apparently unpopulated in the great Buenos Aires, what is it?

“Campo de Mayo is a military base located in Greater Buenos Aires, Argentina, 30 km (19 mi) northwest of Buenos Aires”.
                                               Wikipediawikipedia


What happens if it rains above the boiling point of water?

Pressure and temperature are not all the same when going up vertically. See average temperature and pressure profiles.  The evaporation of any liquid has a pressure-dependent equilibrium point, see the phase diagram of water and Clausius-Clapeyron for a mathematical description of the equilibrium point.

However, I assume that you mean with 212°F (100°C) the temperature at 1 bar level. Then water would tend to evaporate as it goes through the surrounding hot atmosphere. How quickly this happens depends on the temperature of the droplets and their size, i.e. the conditions of their formation.
If the free-fall speed is higher than the evaporation speed, then droplets would still hit the ground.

Of course this is a hypothetical scenario, as if the ground is at 100°C, then the atmospheric layers where droplets could form will be some 20-30°C colder (so minimum at 160°F). Which means they will not form in the first place.
Which means it would not rain if you assume the ground temperature is 212°F.


Where are old Himawari weather satellite images available to the public? Is the 18-Dec-2018 Bearing Sea fireball still there?

You need to go this site - Himawari Archive and then it depends on what category of user you are and then obtain the imagery that way.

UPDATE -

On OP's request I am recording the information I got from JMA when I wanted to access Himawari's images. You need to specify what kind of user you are

a) research
b) commercial.

Presuming research you can obtain Himawari images from the following institutions as mentioned in the original link I provided

  The following four Japanese institutions operate Himawari-8 data archiving and redistribution services on a best-effort basis for research, development and education:

  1) JAXA Himawari Monitor (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency)
          http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ptree/index.html
      Himawari-8 Data Download and Processing System (Data Integration and Analysis System Program)

  2) http://himawari.diasjp.net/expert/
      Center for Environmental Remote Sensing (CEReS)

  3) Chiba University
          http://www.cr.chiba-u.jp/databases/GEO/H8_9/FD/index_jp.html

  4)    Himawari Satellite Project (NICT : National Institute of Information and Communications Technology)
          http://sc-web.nict.go.jp/himawari/

  Users must register to download data from each institution and observe the individual data usage policies.

If you are asking how I would do it then I must mention I use a python software called
SatPy

Then I go to this URL - JAXA FTP URL( I think it is only visible if you are registered) and then download the data for whatever year I want. Then write a small script using a SatPy reader and view the data.

NOTE For the last points you are better off asking questions either on SatPy and for the data itself writing email to JAXA.


SWAT model has a pretty good technical and theoretical documentation on their website : http://swat.tamu.edu/documentation/

Regarding the conceptual logic, SWAT is based on sub-watershed discretization. Inside these, it defines Hydrological Response Units (similar slope, land use and soil). Then, you simplify it on the basis of the HRU heterogeneity, you may chose between assigning to the sub-watersheds the response of the dominant HRU or define a multiple responses. At this step, SWAT knows which parameters to use in the hydrological processes you have selected and can run the simulation.

I would suggest that you read the introduction of the theoretical documentation and, assuming that surface runoff is a major contributor to your discharge, maybe the chapter 2.1 on surface runoff.  You need to understand the Curve Number Method wich is used to compute runoff volumes. If you want to decrease runoff speed, you may increase the manning coefficient (friction to flow) for both overland flow or channel flow. As it seems that you have a time of concentration greater than one day, you should also check the surface runoff lag parameter [SURLAG].

But as SWAT is a sophisticated model with a lot of parameters and sensitive to scale, discretization methods and input resolution, it is hard to know what's wrong with your simulation. It is quite normal that a uncalibrated model, even physically based, provides results far from the observed discharge. To calibrate a model, you must first identify the most sensitive parameters by running a sensitivity analysis. Then, as you know what parameters will have significant impact on the simulated discharge, you can run a calibration by varying them in a physically acceptable range.

Hope this help,

D.D.


Are there any differences between the subalkali and alkali rock occuring tectonic environments?

Yes, there are many differences and subdifferences and nuances.

I will try to keep it in simple terms which will satisfy your question.

Alkaline magmas form by low degree partial melting of the deep mantle. This is why you see them in hotspots. It's very hot down there, but you do not form a lot of melt. For example, the amounts of melts in Hawaii are negligible compared to what you have in large igneous provinces (think Deccan Traps) or mid ocean ridges. Another tectonic setting with common alkaline magmas are rift zones. The best example is the east African Rift (Ethiopia, Kenya, etc). Again - deep melting of the mantle leads to alkaline magmatism.

Subalkaline magmas form in shallower melting. For example, the voluminous mid ocean ridge basalts are not alkaline, and the melt forms within a few kilometres of the surface. Arc magmas (andesites etc) are also not too alkaline because they form by fluid-assisted melting of not too deep mantle above subduction zones.

Even though large igneous provinces form by mantle plumes, the melting so extensive that the melts are not alkaline any more. To get alkaline melts, it has to be low-degree partial melt.


Technique to delete spin-up frames from WRF

Here is my  present approach.

All wrfout-files are located in the same path.
Using pynco in python loop to split the spin-up dataframe

import glob
nco = Nco()
for fn in glob.iglob('*.nc'):
    filename, extname = os.path.splitext(fn)
    output_fn = filename[11:22] + str(int(filename[22:24]) + 12) + extname
    nco.ncks(input=fn, output=output_fn, dimension='Time,13,')

The input shows like: 2014-04-04_12.nc(120 frame inside)
The output shows like:wrfout_2014-04-04_00:00:00.nc(133 frame inside)


Educational book on science of climate change with action items?

I recommend following two books. I am not sure it will answer all the questions you have mentioned but I think together they will answer most of them.

The discovery of global warming by Spencer Weart http://www.worldcat.org/title/discovery-of-global-warming/oclc/51505599
The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/80331702

Both the books are highly readable for non-expert audience. Both the books do good job in educating readers about scientific aspect of the problem without bogging down them with equations or technical jargon.  The first book's focus is on science aspect of the climate-change problem and told in highly engaging style, the second book's focus is on mitigation aspect in equally engaging style.


Over which surface will the albedo changes due to clear and overcast skies have the greatest impact?

You should also consider that fresh snow atop the sea ice increases the albedo significantly. So the albedo for sea ice can fluctuate during a season. More clouds implies more precipitation, something we are seeing in a changing climate, so it’s fair to assume that changes in snow cover atop the sea ice will change as well. It may also make the change in seasonal albedo more dramatic, from sea ice to darker oceans. It depends on the weather patterns and the regions.
 Also, first-year sea ice will have a lower albedo than multi-year ice that has does not melt each season - though in the Arctic is type of ice is now very rare.

If cloud cover increases over the oceans the albedo as seen from space will not change significantly, but again, the cloud types and heights will affect the albedo. But more cloud cover generally will trap more outgoing radiation enhancing the greenhouse effect. In a positive feedback loop. So, using you numbers, the albedo would increase, but the greenhouse effect would enhance, overall leading to a temperature increase.

Land cover also varies, mid latitude regions are likely to see more cloud cover and more intense storms with climate change. An increase in cloud cover would again lead to changes in the greenhouse effect. With the albedo likely increasing (dark greens of forests, fields, etc having lower albedos etc).

Overall your reasoning is sound, but it overlooks the effect cloud cover has on outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface, more of which will be trapped and re-radiated by the extra water vapor.


Do other terrestrial planets have "earthquakes"?

For terminology, "Earth"quakes might be replaced with "seismic activity" since earthquakes are by definition restricted to the Earth.

Technically speaking the other terrestrial planets in our solar system are not active in terms of plate tectonics.  Mercury undergoes rapid heating/cooling depending on its rotation and exposure to the Sun which must lead to some type of seismic activity, though likely very small magnitude.  I don't know of any seismic anomalies recorded on Venus or Mars but certainly there must be some type of activity from time to time due to changes in magma.  Magma - related quakes, though, are typically not as strong as quakes from the dynamics of plate tectonics.  For instance, Hawaii has seismic activity due to the volcanos, which produce maximum seismic activity that is orders of magnitude less than what two plates (e.g. a fault line) rubbing against eachother produce.  Though, the magmatic processes lead to a higher quake frequency.

I would wager that the moon of Jupiter, Io, and Earth have the strongest seismic activity in our solar system.


Regeneration rate of nature after environmental catastrophes

It sounds like you are asking about plants taking up carbon at different stages of Ecological Succession that occur after some catastrophic event (e.g. a wildfire or lava flow).

If the prior ecosystem was dominated by live vegetation such that the detritus emitting $\ce{CO_2}$ was much less than the $\ce{CO_2}$ uptake by plants, then a catastrophe will generally lower the $\ce{CO_2}$ uptake.

When the catastrophe (e.g. lava flow or land slide) creates a new land-surface, then primary succession begins with the establishment of generally small forms of life and $\ce{CO_2}$ sequestration would be minimal. Otherwise, if the catastrophe leaves behind some form of the prior ecological community, then secondary succession can occur and the region would be able to return to higher $\ce{CO_2}$ sequestration rates much sooner relative to a primary succession event.

You might enjoy the following references:

"Carbon sequestration is related to mycorrhizal fungal community shifts during long-term succession in boreal forests."
available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25494880
"Chapter 3: Effects of Disturbance, Succession and Management on Carbon Sequestration" in the book "Carbon Sequestration in Forest Ecosystems" available here: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-90-481-3266-9_3


Accepting/refusing high rainfall measurement

As you have multiple nearby gauge stations. I would suggest to compute a multiple linear regression that would allow you to estimate the rain in one station using the data from the others.

Then, compute the historical standard  deviation of the measurements in that station relative to the prediction using the linear regression model.

With this, you can filter data errors by rejecting all points that deviate more than X standard deviations from the prediction based on nearby stations. You have to define your threshold X based on experience, and by looking at the data. It will depend in the quality of the correlation between the precipitation in the different stations, so no universal value can be defined.


When can taste be used to help identify rocks?

You are correct about halite and sylvite. I might add that carnallite also has an extremely bitter taste. These three minerals are chlorides and dissolve very easily, so that may be a part of the issue here.
Differentiating mudstone (clay) from siltstone is actually not about taste, but rather about texture. Note that this can be misleading. If you have a rock with 70% clays and 30% sand (or silt), you are going to feel the silt, giving it a higher proportion in your estimate, unless you have enough experience to consider this bias.

I would also like to note the dangers in tasting rocks. Although not common, some minerals are radioactive. Also some minerals contain lead, mercury and other hazardous elements. Some minerals may also be contaminated by anthropogenic pollution. So be careful with tasting rocks.


What voltage and/or amps cannot be found naturally?

The maximum voltage which can possibly occur depends on the materials involved and the distance.

When the breakdown voltage of an insulator is exceeded, the electric potential difference is large enough to force the material into becoming a conductor.

This means that for example when the voltage between two points on the surface of the earth, or two in the sky, or anywhere else connected by air, exceeds about 3kV/ḿm (depending on e.g. humidity) the air between them starts to conduct and the potential will tend to equalize. The same principle applies when the points are separated by materials such as rock.

It turns out, however, that we are not here interested in the properties of the atmosphere since lightning is insignificant compared to the geodynamo. I am not aware of any easily digestible summaries which put the numbers in terms of raw amperage, unfortunately. I did manage to find this lecture which (p. 30) has some estimates of total current in the inner magnetosphere (so in space surrounding the planet, not on it unfortunately) in the multi mega-ampere range.


During the Indian Summer Monsoon, a low level jet covers the Arabian Sea. This causes vertical wind shear to increase over the Arabian Sea and inhibits cyclogenesis in the region. Hence, less tropical cyclone activity compared to the Bay of Bengal.

http://www.meted.ucar.edu/tropical/textbook_2nd_edition/print_3.htm#page_5.3.0
(Need account to login)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7371/full/nature10552.html#ref1
(First line)


Is there a standard definition of a "dry-down" event in hydrology?

Dry down is mainly dependent on the speed where a local water storage would be depleted, considering those components extracted from the simplified water balance equation

water input (precipitation)
local drainage capacity (runoff, infiltration, percolation)
evapotranspiration
storage change and capacity (pores in the rock and soil)

To generalize your question

  is it relevant how much rain happened before the event?

I would say yes, as all input / output and potential changes in the storage need to be taken into account to calculate the balance, and ultimately the moment of depletion of the reservoir and thus the beginning of the dry-down.

Antecedent conditions are of an utmost importance when estimating a dry down moment.If the storage was relatively empty prior to a rain event, it could take a lot of input to recharge it, this without neglecting the other factors.

To translate as an example, a huge rain event when the reservoir was empty prior to the event could recharge the reservoir and provide some surface runoff. A similar rain event when the reservoir was half-full prior would recharge for a while and then flood the area because of the important water excess.

This is dependent on the climatic zone (ex Köppen classification), say a warm and dry desert region will have a quite different balance than a polar region, because various input sources and different underground geophysical properties. Yet, within each regions, much variability will be encountered locally, depending on

the ground/soil porosity (sands or weathered rocks can store more water. A clay layer will prevent downward infiltration)
the presence/absence of vegetation (vegetation facilitate percolation/infiltration)
the temperature of the soil : permafrost hydrology is quite complex - generally cold permafrost have a poor drainage capability
maybe a floodplain will contribute to ground recharge one year, but maybe not the next, depending on the current year precipitations and antecedent conditions
plus many other factors etc...

It may be possible at the scale of a single watershed to do a prediction model on the probable schedule of a dry down - or a restricted land unit, because a lot of drilling and geophysical all around surveys would be necessary to know the ground properties, the storage properties. Also a couple of monitoring station (discharge) at higher stream order segments would be required. Rain meters stations too. Moisture would be monitored in representative ground units.

But this would apply locally, and be hardly exportable at a larger scale, in my opinion. I would go with this statement of yours:

  Or is it all arbitrary and defined differently for each individual piece of research?

yes generally


Is altitude of everything decreasing due to sea level rise?

Altitudes are referred to a geoid (an imaginary surface of equal gravity strength), that is chosen to fit the mean sea level. Therefore, if we were to constantly adjust the geoid to fit the rising sea level, all the altitudes would indeed be decreasing in average.

However, it is very important to highlight that "in average" part, because of the rates involved. Let's have a look at the sea level rise rates:

As you can see in the above image (taken from Hawaiʻi Climate Adaptation Portal), the rates of rise are in the order of 4 mm/yr, a value that is small in comparison with other processes that can also change elevations. When you go down to the millimeter-scale, the topography is much more dynamic than you would think, for example:

Post-glacial isostatic rebound: One of the reason the sea level is rising is because the glacier are melting. Mostly from mountain areas. As the glaciers melt, they unload the crust that can be pictured as floating on the mantle (a.k.a. magma at the interior of the Earth), and as any floating object that loose weight, it gain flotation and rises. Typical rates are about 10 mm/yr, but rates up to 39 mm/yr have been measured in heavily glaciated areas. Therefore, most mountains in medium and high latitudes are rising faster than the sea level.
Erosion: Erosion rates are also of the order milimeters per year up to meters per year in river beds and other areas. So, in some areas the erosion can play a much bigger role than sea level when it comes to elevation change. To make it more complex, erosion will also trigger isostatic rebounding, in many case both processes are in balance at large scales.
Deposition: Landforms like stuaries, beaches and deltas, are product of the balance between sediment deposition and erosion. If the sea level rise, the delta will rise too given enough time. The problem currently in some areas, is that the sedimentation can't quite catch up with sea level rise and coastal erosion.
Tectonic uplift: Tectonics also is constantly changing the elevation trough slow deformation and Earthquakes. Parts of the Himalaya are rising at rates of 10 mm/yr, and large earthquakes can produce sudden elevation changes in the order of a few meters.
Tectonic relaxation: As volcanic islands cool down, they sink, Hawai'i is doing so at rates of about one millimetre per year. And geologically young volcanoes are sinking due to the extra weight its formation put on the underlying crust.

Therefore, to say that the elevation of something specific is changing because of sea level rise is not something easy to backup, as there are many other processes to take into account. Scientist make fairly complex models to figure out which areas will actually experience flooding due to sea level rise, and unfortunately, so far they have found that there are many highly populated areas that will face big challenges for that reason.


What effect does climate change have on the Earth's rotation?

The only answer I can come up with is related to isostasy.
1 - Poles melt, so there's more water in the oceans.
2 - As there's more water in the oceans, there's more weight on the oceanic crusts, so they bend, making deeper some parts of the oceans.
3 - The parts of the ocean that are deeper are in the centre of the oceans, far from continental crust. It should be mainly the Pacific Ocean, Indic and Atlantic, but not near Antarctica, as this area is continental crust (lighter) and will be also unloaded from ice.
4 - As a result, the shape of the Earth crust becomes a bit longer in N-S direction.
5 - As the mass of the Earth is closer to the rotation axis, it accelerates the spin.
Lithospheric density is approximately 2.5 times that of water, so amount of water in the ocean isn't as important as crust flexion.


I found this huge rock crystal by the river have no idea what it is?

Your rock is probably a piece of a sedimentary concretion.  I have collected rocks that look very similar from western South Dakota.  The yellow crystals are most likely calcite.  The dark brown colored material is also probably calcite and but might be barite.

Acid testing using HCL should confirm if the yellow and brown area are calcite.
It will probably be difficult to perform an accurate specific gravity measurement for the rock.  My experience is that concretions are commonly quite dense (denser than calcite/dolomite) due to presence of denser minerals such as ankerite, dolomite, barite, celestite, fluorite, marcasite, pyite, sphalerite, siderite, wurzite, and galena as microscopic inclusions hidden within the matrix material.

Concretions definition from wikipedia.


Is the ocean guaranteed to warm in a warming climate, regardless of whether it absorbs LW radiation?

My naive understanding was that our increasing the magnitude of the
  greenhouse effect meant that there was less radiation escapting to
  space

That's 100% correct.   If we assume constant solar input, there's only two ways the Earth's surface temperature can change.   Albedo and Thermal radiation.   Greenhouse gas driven climate change means exactly what you said - less heat radiates off Earth into space.    Most of this heat goes into the Ocean.

  And if it is, does it not imply that the ocean must also get warmer,
  simply because it is a thermally coupled part of the entire warming
  system? I had someone tell me that the a warming atmosphere could not
  warm the ocean beyond an infinitesimal amount, because the atmosphere
  has a much lower heat capacity.

Your friend is half right, and half wrong.   Air has a bit over 1/4th the heat capacity compared to water and it's about 800 times less dense, so he's correct, but it's not that simple.

Sunlight - somewhat counter-intuitively, isn't great at warming oceans because the photons from sunlight are energetic enough to evaporate water molecules into gas molecules.  Oceans have low albedo which means they absorb most of the energy from the sunlight, but much of that heat is lost in evaporation by visible light photons.   While that has nothing to do with your question, it's worth pointing out that sunlight isn't as good at warming oceans as one might think.   (If anyone has one of those solar mirror ovens, I'd be curious to see how well they work on pure water . . . just out of curiosity, evaporation loss vs rate of warming).

The back-radiation from the atmosphere is comparatively much less total solar energy, but oceans are good at absorbing and storing thermal back-radiation reflected back off the greenhouse gas rich atmosphere into the ocean.   This is a tiny amount of the total heat Earth gets from sunlight, and the increase of this radiation due to greenhouse gas is a fraction of one percent of solar energy, but it adds up.

One way to explain this is that 85 degree air will warm 80 degree water. That's a thermodynamic law.  It just takes a while and because the heat capacity and density of water is much greater, it takes about 4 liters of air to give 1 degree back to warm 1 cc of water 1 degree.  But despite the inefficiency, warmer air still transfers heat into colder water.  It takes many decades, perhaps centuries, for the oceans to catch up to the warming air, but air, however inefficiently, does warm the oceans.

The quirk in this, is that the oceans, despite warming much more slowly than the air, are still absorbing over 90% of the trapped heat added by the increase in greenhouse gas.   It's a matter of scale.  Oceans warm slowly because they're enormous and always circulating and it takes much more energy to war them, but they also absorb most of the heat, for the same reason, they're very good at holding heat.  Slow to heat up, but also, slow to cool down.  That's why bodies of water often feel warm when you go swimming at night.

I should probably add something about increased evaporation in higher air temperature, which effectively cools the oceans and surface air, but also increases the greenhouse effect with an increase in water vapor, but running those numbers is a bit over my pay-grade.   The greater efect is the one mentioned above.


If I remember correctly from my intro to paleo class, the terms articulate and inarticulate refer to a classification of brachiopods depending on the nature of their hinge. Articulate brachiopods have something like interlocking hinges (like a door hinge) made from serrated (or tooth like) parts of the shell. On the other hand, inarticulate brachiopods hold their shells together using only their muscles.

This means that the upper and lower shells of an inarticulate brachiopod will separate after it dies and its muscles decay. However, the shells on an articulate one will pretty much hold together unless a very strong mechanical force is applied. I don't know much about tsunami deposits, but this may have something to with that.

I'm not sure if this terminology extends to other phyla like molluscs, but I remember it from brachipods.

And here's a little picture because pictures make everything better.

Hope this helps!

-Antonio


Is there a piece of upside down foreign crust in the USA?

Most probably, he was referring to the Brunswick Magnetic Anomaly: http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/2014/14-22.htm

This is an area of lower-than-normal magnetism present in North America in the Southwestern United States. Note that altough it COULD be a piece of Africa, it could also be caused by something else.


Original Diameter of Ancient Impact Craters

There is a recent paper(open access) that i assume the news item refers to. That paper does not  mention 430m. They use a magnetic anomaly to extrapolate the original crater size from the eroded central uplift. The crater itself is long since eroded.

  Therefore, the ~20 km diameter magnetic anomaly has been interpreted to represent the remnant of the deeply buried central uplift of the structure, which is consistent with an original crater diameter of 70 km

and

  The present day exposure represents a deep erosional level, as neither impact breccias nor topographic expressions of the over-turned rim or central uplift are preserved.

The samples for age determination were taken from a structure called "Barlangi rock":

  The structure is centred on a large exposure of granophyre known locally as Barlangi Rock (Fig. 1; 118˚50′E, 27˚10′S). Barlangi granophyre is a sodic rhyolite[...] that has been interpreted as an impact-generated melt rock[...], radiating dyke-like apophyses of granophyre outcrop as far as 3 km from the centre of the structure

This is not the central uplift itself like from a crustal rebound, but

  ... has thus been interpreted to have intruded into the Yarrabubba monzogranite along faults rather than forming a flat-lying, crater-filling melt sheet ...

The filling at Barlangi has a complex age range (2.79 to 2.23Gy). 2.229 has been determined out of this as the most likely date of the impact. And of course, since then it has been exposed to weathering and erosion.

So there are two separate things here: the size inferred from magnetism, and the age determination from an intrusive melt.

Wikipedia estimates the Manicouagan structure's original diameter to ~100km. More on that event and it's proposed impact on the environment can be found here (open access). The introduction names an initial diameter of 90km for Manicouagan.

Hope that clarifies. Corrections and annotations welcome.


What causes "hydrocarbons" to take the form of petroleum versus natural gas?

Oil and gas both form when organic matter is buried under anoxic conditions, such that it isn't oxidised and subsequently mineralised to the elemental components of the hydrocarbons.

What hydrocarbons are formed depends on both burial depth and temperature. Above approximately 1km below the surface no significant formation of oil takes place, and hydrocarbons are either mineralised or broken down to volatile products such as methane, propane, and butane.

The often so called 'oil window' is located below 1km, but above ~4km, and at temperatures between 40-50 °C and 150 °C. Under these conditions long hydrocarbon chains can form without being broken down to shorter, more volatile chains.

At larger depths or higher temperatures no (significant amount of) oil is formed, and all organic matter is transformed to natural gas.

An approximate graph after Nichols (2009).

Formation of these fossil fuels often takes place in shales (lithified clay) that are rich in organic matter, but as all sedimentary rocks this is a porous medium and thus liquids will tend to flow upwards to areas of lower pressure. To be preserved two other components are therefore necessary: a reservoir rock (often sandstone) and a sealing rock (numerous types of rock are suitable, including rock salt and certain igneous rocks), often in dome or fault structures.

Source: Nichols, Gary (2009) Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, p 293-295


Climatology of the Indian Summer Monsoon - A modern consensus

The Indian Summer Monsoon(ISM) has several layers of complexity as it involves interactions between land, sea and atmosphere. This answer will focus on the state of the art overall understanding of the ISM and provide a summary of the salient features of the interactions between land, sea and atmosphere. In general it should be noted that while some references may talk of Land - Atmosphere interactions and Ocean - Atmosphere interactions it is almost impossible to differentiate between the role of land - atmosphere interaction and that of the  ocean -atmosphere  separately and the two processes should be considered to be part of the overall land - atmosphere - ocean interaction especially in the context of Asian Summer Monsoon[1]

1) Seasonal transition from boreal spring to  summer causes heating of the Asian landmass faster than the  surrounding oceans owing to the difference in heat capacities in land and sea leading to the establishment of a meridional temperature gradient [2]. The land retains  a shorter climate "memory" than the ocean [1].

2) The presence of the Himalayas(oriented east west) and Tibetan plateau ensures that sensible heating occurs aloft as well. The implications of the elevated sensible heating are that not only is the meridional temperature gradient present at the surface but aloft as well and  thereby "tethering" the monsoon onset [2] [3]

3) Formation of a surface heat low pressure over the Indian subcontinent during the late boreal spring that ensures a cross equatorial flow due to the north south pressure gradient at the low level and return cross equatorial flow aloft.

4) Thermodynamic conditions caused by the solar heating in boreal spring and early summer cause the seasonal migration of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone also known as the Monsoon Trough(MT) [4]

5) Seasonal migration of the Mascarene High from it's December January February(DJF) position over the south eastern Indian Ocean at 85 E 30 S to June July August(JJA) position over the southern Western Indian Ocean near 55 E 30 S[5]

6) The role of East African Highlands(oriented north-south) in blocking the low level easterly flow and steering the winds across the equator into the south westerly monsoon flow. Without orographic influence of the East African Highlands  the south easterly winds that blow across the equator would blow over East Africa and the Atlantic rather than being transformed into the Somali Jet[5]. A GCM simulation study in which the orographic influence of the African Highlands were removed showed  that the Highlands have a huge influence on the monsoonal flow[6]

7) The Findlater Jet otherwise known as the Somali Jet gathers momentum due to the Earth's rotation [7]

8) A wind evaporation feedback mechanism is responsible for rapid onset as well as intensification  [8]

9) Initial monsoon onset is attributed to sensible heating but after the monsoon has set it is latent heat that drives the monsoon.[9]

10) Interactions between extra tropical eddies and meridional overturning circulation modelled as feedback. This study is remarkable as it shows that the onset of monsoon can be modelled in the absence of surface in-homogeneities as well as hydrological cycle [10]

11) The poleward extent of the monsoonal precipitation has been attributed to the "ventilation effect". At mid latitudes westerly winds advect air with low moist static energy from the cool oceans of the continent which tends to balance incoming solar radiation [11] [12]

12) Oceans contribute by changing SSTs and the Indian Ocean sees a large surface positive heat flux during the boreal spring and summer which is balanced by net southward transport of heat across the equator and increase of heat storage across the upper ocean [13]

Finally it must be mentioned that not all of the coupled feedbacks have been fully explored in general circulation models or in observations [14]

References

[1] Yasunari, T. Role of Land - Atmosphere Interaction on Asian Monsoon climate. J.O.M. S. of Japan, Vol. 85 B, pp.55-75, 2007

[2] Li, C. F. & Yanai, M. The onset and interannual variability of the Asian summer monsoon in relation to land sea thermal contrast. J. Clim. 9, 358–375 (1996).

[3]Fasullo, J. & Webster, P. J. A hydrological definition of Indian monsoon onset and withdrawal. J. Clim. 16, 3200–3211 (2003).

[4]Prive, N. C. & Plumb, R. A. Monsoon dynamics with interactive forcing. Part I: Axisymmetric studies. J. Atmos. Sci. 64, 1417–1430 (2007).

[5]Slingo, J., Spencer, H., Hoskins, B., Berrisford, P. & Black, E. The meteorology of the western Indian Ocean, and the influence of the East African highlands. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 363, 25–42 (2005).

[6]Rodwell, M. J. & Hoskins, B. J. 1995 A model of the Asian Summer Monsoon. II. Crossequatorial flow and PV behavior. J. Atmos. Sci. 52, 1341–1356.

[7] Findlater, J. A major low-level air current near the Indian Ocean during northern summer: Interhemispheric transport of air in the lower troposphere over western Indian Ocean. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 96, 551–554 (1970).

[8] Boos, W. R. & Emanuel, K. A. Annual intensification of the Somali jet in a quasi-equilibrium framework: Observational composites. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 135, 319–335 (2009).

[9] Chou, C. Land-sea heating contrast in an idealized Asian summer monsoon. Clim. Dynam. 21, 11–25 (2003).

[10] Bordoni, S. & Schneider, T. Monsoons as eddy-mediated regime transitions of the tropical overturning circulation. Nature Geosci. 1, 515–519 (2008).

[11] Chou, C., Neelin, J. D. & Su, H. Ocean-atmosphere-land feedbacks in an idealized monsoon. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 127, 1869–1891 (2001)

[12] Chou, C. & Neelin, J. D. Mechanisms limiting the northward extent of the northern summer monsoons over North America, Asia, and Africa. J. Clim. 16, 406–425 (2003).

[13] Loschnigg, J. & Webster, P. J. A coupled ocean-atmosphere system of SST modulation for the Indian Ocean. J. Clim. 13, 3342–3360 (2000).

[14]Turner, A. G. and Annamalai, H.  Climate change and the South Asian summer monsoon. Nature Climate Change, 2. pp. 587-595.(2012)


Lenticular clouds don't form because "rising air comes in contact with cooler air" but rather from moist air cooling to its dew point as it is forced to rise over the terrain.  Unlike most clouds that move with the wind, clouds like these are "anchored" to the terrain and the air moves through them.  If you observe them closely you can see new cloud forming as air flows upward and into the cloud on the windward side of the slope and evaporating as it exits descending on the lee side.

As air rises, pressure decreases and the air expands (volume increases).  This results in a temperature decrease in the parcel.  When the rising air cools to its dew point the cloud will form.  In this case air is only rising because it is forced over the mountain.  Once past the peak, the air descends the lee slope and is compressed and warmed.  Once it warms up and relative humidity is below 100% the cloud evaporates.  If the streamlines parallel the contours of the peak, this results in a roughly circular region where the air is suitable for the cloud to form.

If the terrain was a long ridge instead of an isolated peak, the lenticular cloud will elongated as a line over the ridge tops.

You generally won't see the cloud elongated downwind, as the air is forced down the lee slope.  What you might instead see are clouds at regular intervals downstream of the mountain if the mountain (and atmospheric stability) has caused a standing wave to form. In this case you might see clouds in the peaks of the wave depending the humidity of the air and the amplitude of the wave.


Is there a standardized way to define weather icons based on quantifiable data?

The icons that are used are really just a visual way of describing the phrasing that is used in the forecast.  You can see an example of one set of icons offered by Weather Underground here.  And they have many different icon sets that you could choose from.  The phrases themselves are linked to specific ranges of probability of precipitation, cloud cover, or other factor.  This site shows some nice tables that give some of those ranges (sample shown below):