🌊New work led by student M. Ricci & @dohnemus.bsky.social from our Hawaii Aerosol Time-series 'ML residence times...relative to dust, ranged from <1-12 days; 1 wk to 6 mth through 300 m, from rapid packaging into large particles near the surface' agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10....

Skidaway Institute of Oceanography is searching for a new Director! Please consider applying (I’m a great* employee) and forward around! Deadline is April 1, 2026 for full consideration. Apply here: www.ugajobsearch.com/postings/469... *I promise I’ll start doing my travel authorizations earlier!

Any trace metal folks used non-metal needles for clean sampling? Hamilton sells PEEK ones but they’re $40/each!

New favorite German word I’ve learned, “verschlimmbessert”—to make something worse with so-called improvements. So many examples in academia!

If you plot dFe vs dAl from the GEOTRACES IDP, you get a horse.

(6/n) Science/research offers a unique opportunity for innovation focusing on content that is (at least ideally): a) self-evident (if presented properly!), and b) independent of the authors. It would require significant effort to set aside our egos from the scientific processes too.

(5/n) Relatedly, reviewing and editorship would be interesting to consider from a trust standpoint. Are editors entrusted with the identities of the authors and/or reviewers to assist in verification of their credentials? Is that even necessary if the science is self-evident?

(4/n) … meaning authors who are not being suppressed or conducting “taboo” research to _elect_ use of the system to dilute the pool for those suppressed authors and topics.

(3/n) I’d be interested if folks know of relevant comparisons and/or lessons from the real world. Author-blind peer review comes with many of its own challenges, and not all research is well suited to secrecy of the authors. Such a system would also greatly benefit from “sympathetic adoption”…

(2/n) Such a system would provide plausible deniability for suppressed authors until they chose to show ownership. Such a system might even come with fairer reviews given its anonymity requirements. There are numerous complications and considerations, of course, so flexibility would be important.

In our new age of speed-run fascism and crypto, suppressed research should be publishable under mixed-privacy credentialing. We have the tools to create an article submission system where author(s) can _eventually_ claim credit for their articles using private keys—think NFTs for research. 1/n

research.uga.edu/news/study-u... @dohnemus.bsky.social

My snow boots were literally dusty

Snowvannah

A white power, nazi salute at an American inauguration. Twice. Be disgusted and be saddened by your countrymen. But stop being surprised! Be thankful they’re showing who they are—without veils or hesitation. Because in the face of this naked hatred we too can stand up when needed without hesitation

In honor of the passing of David Lynch—a spoof ad showing his disdain for the cheapening of his art

Also dusty:

We got a paper published! (And I already found some problems with it!) If you want to figure out how much dust MERRA-2--an atmospheric reanalysis product--thinks was over your study site, you can use the tools linked in the article or on my GitHub: doi.org/10.1029/2024... github.com/capecodnativ...

Firing up my bsky account with some content (con-quinnt?) re-posted from another app. Here's to a future filled with more authentic interactions.