PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 44/2001 - 21 March 2001
-----------------------------
"For the first time in my life, I realised that, with a lot
of work
and a bit of luck, I could help make the political breakthrough
that had
so far evaded the Spaceguard programme. It was bound to be
regarded
as wacky by colleagues, but, hell, so what? They laughed at
Galilleo.
The first step to make the Government listen is to get the
subject into the
system. This wasn't easy, since no department is apparently
responsible for
the end of the world. [...] In desperation, we called the House
of Commons
Library. We explained that the world was in mortal danger of an
asteroid
impact, which could wipe out most of the human race, and most of
the rest
of life on earth too. We described the heat flash, the blast,
tidal waves and
Electro Magnetic Pulse that would fry anything that has a
microchip in it.
Then we said: so who should we call? After a few moments silence,
he
replied with the immortal phrase, "well, on the basis of
what you've told
me, maybe you should be talking to the Archbishop of
Canterbury."
--Lembit Öpik, MP, 19 March 2001
(1) MAKING A DEEP IMPACT ON GOVERNMENT SPACE POLICY
Lembit Öpik, MP
(2) SCIENTISTS RETURN TO ANCIENT IMPACT CRATER AT CHESAPEAKE BAY
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(3) HUGE EAST COAST IMPACT CRATER LEAVES LEGACY OF WATER WOES
Space.com, 20 March 2001
(4) DEEP SPACE 1 LOADS UP FOR TREK TO COMET
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(5) INTERNET-ENABLED EARTHQUAKE ALERT SYSTEM COMING
CNN, 20 March 2001
(6) CHANNEL FIREBALL
Neil Bone <bafb4@central.susx.ac.uk>
(7) CHANNEL FIREBALL
Martin Hoffmann <Martin.Hoffmann@dlr.de>
(8) A RADICAL FUNDING POSSIBILITY FOR THE SPACEGUARD PROJECT?
Michael Martin-Smith <martin@miff.demon.co.uk>
(9) PLANETARY DEFENCE AND FUNDING PRIORITIES
Jonathan Tate <spaceguard@dial.pipex.com>
(10) ONE WEEK'S PRACTICAL "TIMES"
Hermann Burchard <burchar@mail.math.okstate.edu>
(11) MODERN ASTRONOMY: EYES WIDE SHUT?
Jon Richfield <richfield@telkomsa.net>
(12) PLATINIUM GROUP ELEMENTS
Ibrahim Uysal <iuysal@ktu.edu.tr>
================
(1) MAKING A DEEP IMPACT ON GOVERNMENT SPACE POLICY
By Lembit Öpik, MP
Physics Congress, Brighton, 19 March 2001
Probably the most important astronomical thing that happened to
me was being
born into a family that contained a professional astronomer who
believed
that, the end of the world was nigh. Ernst Julius Öpik was
eccentric, strong
minded, passionate, musical - and usually right. His work on the
solar
system, mainly at Armagh Observatory, and the University of
Maryland in the
U.S.A., was often ground breaking.
So much so, that some people regarded his ideas as nuts.
Interestingly, I've
never met a dinosaur that laughed at my Granddad, except perhaps
in the
houses of parliament. The rest of 'em died out in just about the
way my
Grandfather would have predicted.
So, when it comes to astronomy, I was a gonner from the start.
The next
important thing that happened was my fear of becoming dull when I
became an
MP. You'll have to judge for yourself, but, when I was returned
as the MP
for Montgomeryshire, I resolved I had to do something to make
sure I
maintained something of interest beyond the confines of party
politics and
all that.
The third important element was Jay Tate. Together with the likes
of Richard
Tremayne-Smith of the British National Space Centre, Dr Jasper
Wall,
Director, Royal Greenwich Observatory and, Dr David Holland,
Ministry of
Defence, they'd started to meet and talk about the threat back in
1996.
In October 1996 Dr Tom Gehrels and seventeen other scientists
made contact
with 16 politicians and scientists urging UK involvement in NEO
research,
and this was followed up with a letter by Dr Edward Teller to the
Prime
Ministers of Great Britain and Australia.
That's when Spaceguard UK was formed as information service for
the public,
media and the professional - not a political lobbying body. And
that's when
I met Jay Tate. He was giving a talk to the Shropshire
Astronomical Society
in a small community centre in Shrewsbury. By the time he'd
finished I knew
I had to do something. For the first time in my life, I realised
that, with
a lot of work and a bit of luck, I could help make the political
breakthrough that had so far evaded the Spaceguard programme. It
was bound
to be regarded as wacky by colleagues, but, hell, so what? They
laughed at
Galilleo.
So this is what I did.
The first step to make the Government listen is to get the
subject into the
system. This wasn't easy, since no department is apparently
responsible for
the end of the world. So we got tossed from the MoD to DETR, and
even
briefly to the Home Office. I know Jack Straw is under pressure
about the
arrival of illegal aliens, but I though the likelihood of
significant influx
form the Kuiper Belt was stretching it a bit.
In desperation, we called the House of Commons Library. We
explained that
the world was in mortal danger of an asteroid impact, which could
wipe out
most of the human race, and most of the rest of life on earth
too. We
described the heat flash, the blast, tidal waves and Electro
Magnetic Pulse
that would fry anything that has a microchip in it. Then we said:
so who
should we call? After a few moments silence, he replied with the
immortal
phrase, "well, on the basis of what you've told me, maybe
you should be
talking to the Archbishop of Canterbury."
In fact, the high priest of asteroids turned out to be John
Battle, MP, at
the DTI.
So that's where we ended up.
That's when we had our first breakthrough. I managed to secure a
30min
debate on the floor of the House, under the title Spaceguard. I
started with
the phrase: "I've got a problem with asteroids" which
with one foul swoop
secured me a life-time's supply of various creams and lotions
from every
smart ass in the country! The debate started around 10.30 at
night it
generated a pretty big audience from my party and others. I
suspect the
motive was less about astronomy than coming to watch want many
assumed,
would be the final speech of my political career.
Funnily enough, I told them about the dinosaurs, I told them
about Tunguska,
I told them about what would happen if a 1km wide object were
inbound to any
point in the Atlantic. The heat flash and the shock wave, and
funnily
enough, they were not laughing when I finished. I think the
statistic that
upset them most was that you are 750 times more likely to die in
an Asteroid
impact than you likely to win the National Lottery this weekend.
John Battle MP was the Minister who had the great pleasure of
responding to
this on behalf of the Government and he did it well. Against all
odds he
chose to take a serious line on it. Perhaps something that helped
was that I
suspect he was being advised by the same people that I was.
Certainly his
response did enough to put Spaceguard on the Political agenda.
He said "My colleagues and I stand ready to discuss the
matter further with
him. Our understanding of this subject is developing. The
Government welcome
such positive input. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured
that the
matter can be treated seriously."
Meanwhile, in another place, on 15th June in the House of Lords,
Lord Tanlaw
asked Her Majesty's Government: "What steps are being taken
to form a
national Spaceguard centre, as part of a European Spaceguard
programme, to
improve the assessment and probability factor of impact hazard of
a near
earth object on the continent of Europe or in the seas
surrounding it?" Lord
Sainsbury replied positively.
So we were in business at last and I knew we had to now campaign
for a
specific outcome that didn't push the government too far in one
go. As you
may have noticed Governments like task forces because they are
cheap and
noisy and tell you what you have to do, with you having to do it.
When you
are in New Rome, do as the New Romans do. And that's what we did.
Over a period of 3 months we pushed the asteroid threat up the
agenda. The
media, for once, was very helpful. Nigel Nelson of the Sunday
People was
instrumental in keeping up the pressure. Somehow, we managed to
package the
concept of an asteroid impact in a new way every month for about
6 months in
a row. Usually, this involved finding a close flying NEO,
normally supplied
by Mark Bailey at Armagh, and then generating a graphic of what
would happen
if it hit, say, Birmingham, or anywhere else with a lot of Sunday
People
readers.
Then a miracle happened. Hollywood sent Bruce Willis into space
to stop an
asteroid from destroying the planet. Together with the Deep
Impact film, we
suddenly had the public's attention. In the sort of irony that
makes life so
entertaining, Hollywood convinced the UK population that it was
science
fact.
In June, we met with Lord Sainsbury, who'd taken over as Blair's
spokesman
on NEO's. And we put the case for the Task Force. Nigel Holloway
form
Aldermaston did the actuarial Risk. Jay Tate outlined Spaceguard.
Mark
Bailey frightened everybody with his wild tales of enormous
rocks. And Lord
Sainsbury made notes.
On 4th January 2000, he finally announced the NEO Task Force. 8
months
later, in the Middle of the Lib Dem Annual Conference, he
published the
report. That is definitely on of my favourite days in British
politics. Even
those who'd looked down on us from the start we now looking up.
And fair do's to Lord Sainsbury. He'd delivered a report with 14
clear
recommendations that could just help us save the planet.
Since then, it's all gone a bit quiet at the Government end. In
recent
times, I've started asking questions more loudly again. I raised
it with the
Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Questions a few weeks ago. And
yesterday,
I challenged another minister in a space debate to update up on
plans.
I've been suggesting the next step should be for the PM to raise
it at the
next G8 Summit. The richest nations have the most to lose in
terms of
infrastructure.
In terms of cost to those nations it's peanuts. About a million
pounds a
year each; for ten years to see what's up there. And a total
price tag of
around 4 billion quid, to divert it. Put it another way that
works out as
60p a person for a global insurance policy against a pretty messy
end.
So, at are the lessons so far about making a deep impact on
government space
policy?
Firstly, it can be done. Ministers haven't committed funds yet,
but I think
they'd be crazy to think they can't. It's so likely that there
will be an
impact in our lifetimes, of at least a few megatons, that
Governments either
do it now, or respond to public panic the day after.
A key recommendation of the task force -Recommendation 13 -is
that " A
British Centre for Near Earth Objects be set up whose mission
would be to
promote and coordinate work on the subject in Britain; to provide
an
advisory service to the Government, other relevant authorities,
the public
and the media, and to facilitate British involvement in
international
activities. In doing so it would call on the Research Councils
involved, in
particular the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council
and the
Natural Environment Research Council, and on universities,
observatories and
other bodies concerned in Britain."
If you ask me, to ignore such advice in the ten-pin bowling alley
more
commonly called the inner solar system would probably turnout to
be a
serious election loser in the event of a strike.
Secondly, it's about finding friends in high places. I had an
interest
anyway, but the breakthroughs came by influencing decision makers
to take
the threat seriously, without risking looking foolish.
Thirdly, it takes time. We're still some time away form the
actually
commitment of money. But I believe it will happen. Minister Alan
Johnson,
replying for the Government said yesterday,
"Action to increase the detection of near earth objects with
the potential
to collide should therefore be addressed internationally. That is
what the
honourable Gentleman has said, and we agree with him."
And finally, that, sometimes it's still possible to do something
that goes
beyond the confines of party politics and internal fighting.
Sometimes we
can reach out for a higher goal, in this case, towards the stars.
I think it
would be a pity if, after 3000,000,000 years of evolution, the
smartest
species in our neck of the suburbs of the Milky Way was
extinguished for no
better reason than the fact that we were willing to spend
hundreds of
billions to maintain the capacity to destroy ourselves, but
nothing to avert
the greatest threat of all.
People have different reasons to get involved in politics. Some
do it for
fame, others for power over their fellow human. And some just
want to save
the world. At this gateway, I hope we'll make the decisions to
ensure that
history will be able to record who was who. And if it works out,
I hope my
Granddad would be proud.
===========
(2) SCIENTISTS RETURN TO ANCIENT IMPACT CRATER AT CHESAPEAKE BAY
From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
http://www.usgs.gov/public/press/public_affairs/press_releases/pr1400m.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
News
Release
Address
Office of Outreach
U.S. Department of the
Interior
953 National Center
U.S. Geological
Survey
Reston, VA 20192
Release
Contact
Phone Fax
March 15,
2001
Diane Noserale 703-648-4333
703-648-6859
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists Return to Ancient Impact Crater
March will mark the beginning of a new field season for
scientists from the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and its cooperators who will begin
drilling a
second core hole into an impact structure created 35 million
years ago when
an asteroid or comet slammed into the ocean near the present-day
mouth of
the Chesapeake Bay. The scientists are studying the effect of
this ancient
event on the modern day regional ground-water system and the
quality of
drinking water in southeastern Virginia.
"The asteroid or comet probably measured about 1 to 2 miles
in diameter and
was traveling at tens of miles per second," said Greg Gohn,
USGS Chief of
the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater Project. "It gouged a
crater 53 miles wide
and fractured bedrock to a depth of well over a mile. Today,
those disrupted
rock units greatly affect the pattern of ground-water flow
throughout
southeastern Virginia. Because we believe that this ancient
impact might
have rendered the ground water in large areas of the crater
unfavorable for
development as a water source, the information we are gathering
is relevant
to managing ground-water resources in southeastern
Virginia," said Gohn.
Gohn expects to begin drilling at two sites in the Middle Neck of
Virginia.
Drilling of a core hole 1,500 feet deep at a site in Mathews
County,
Virginia near the village of North will likely begin on March 20.
This
location is a short distance inside the outer rim of the crater
as it is
presently mapped on the Middle Neck. Work at a second drill site
in Mathews
County near Shadow, Virginia is planned to begin in June. This
site is
located well within the ring-shaped trough of the impact crater;
scientists
expect to penetrate the bottom of the crater at a depth between
2,000 to
2,500 feet. Last summer, the scientists drilled more than 2,000
feet into
the crater's rim at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton,
Virginia.
Science support and funding have been provided in part by the
Hampton Roads
Planning District Commission and the Virginia Department of
Environmental
Quality.
As the nation's largest water, earth and biological science and
civilian
mapping agency, the USGS works in cooperation with more than 2000
organizations across the country to provide reliable, impartial
scientific
information to resource managers, planners and other customers.
This
information is gathered in every state by USGS scientists to
minimize the
loss of life and property from natural disasters, contribute to
the sound
conservation, economic and physical development of the nation's
natural
resources, and enhance the quality of life by monitoring water,
biological,
energy, and mineral resources.
===============
(3) HUGE EAST COAST IMPACT CRATER LEAVES LEGACY OF WATER WOES
From Space.com, 20 March 2001
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/east_coast_asteroid_010320.html
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
One of the worst cosmic collisions known to have rocked what is
now the
United States carved a huge crater from the present-day mouth of
Chesapeake
Bay.
The asteroid or comet impact kicked a cloud of debris high into
the
atmosphere, spawned devastating tsunami waves up to 2,000 feet
(610 meters)
high, and carved out the largest crater ever found in the United
States,
researchers say.
It also left a legacy of salty groundwater that threatens the
fresh water
supplies of some 2 million people who live in and around the
unstable crater
eons later.
So this week, scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
planned to
begin drilling a 1,500-foot (457-meter) hole in the ground near
the outer
rim of the now-buried crater. The drilling is part of an ongoing
project to
help local water companies manage a deteriorating supply.
Researchers have
learned that the rim is a tenuous boundary between salty
groundwater within
the crater's confines and fresh groundwater on the outside.
Last summer drilling in a separate hole at NASA Langley Research
Center,
which sits on the crater rim in Hampton, Virginia, turned up
quartz crystals
that researchers say can only be caused by cosmic impacts.
The crater
The water woes started when a huge object slammed into Earth 35
million
years ago. The impact left a now-buried, unstable crater rim that
still
generates earthquakes as it shifts and sloughs around.
"The asteroid or comet probably measured about 1 to 2 miles
(1.6 to 3.2
kilometers) in diameter and was traveling at tens of miles per
second," said
Greg Gohn, USGS Chief of the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater
Project. "It
gouged a crater 53 miles (85 kilometers) wide and fractured
bedrock to a
depth of well over a mile. Today, those disrupted rock units
greatly affect
the pattern of groundwater flow throughout southeastern
Virginia."
Gohn said last week that the continued drilling will help
researchers manage
groundwater resources in southeastern Virginia.
The impact created a two-tiered depression, like an inverted
sombrero, in
what was then a shallow part of the ocean, explains David Powars,
a
hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.
Over time, rivers in the region turned to flow into the crater
before going
out to sea which, along with glacial advances and retreats,
carved out
Chesapeake Bay, Powars said. The bay, he said, is no more than a
drowned
river system.
"It's an incredible collision that we're talking
about," Powars said in 1999
after the crater was confirmed to have been caused by an impact.
He likened
it to putting all the world's nuclear weapons in one spot and
detonating
them simultaneously. "The force of the impact ejected huge
amounts of debris
into the atmosphere and spawned a train of gigantic tsunamis that
probably
reached as far as the Blue Ridge Mountains."
The crater is buried under 400 to 1,200 feet (120 to 365 meters)
of sand,
silt and clay. Its existence was originally suspected in 1993
after Powars
and colleagues studied oil company seismic data.
Powars said the incoming projectile lifted the ocean floor as
much as 200
feet (60 meters). Like a giant paddle, this would have sent huge
waves
traveling outward in all directions and back and forth, carving a
crater
that is much different than the more evenly sculpted variety
caused by
impacts on land.
"Because of the giant hole...you could have had water from
the ocean slosh
in and slosh out," Powars said, explaining that the waves
created a jagged
and irregular outer rim that jumps in and out a mile or so in
various spots.
"You have a real mess in there," Powars said.
Ancient marine fossils and other debris sloshed in and are now
buried deep
inside the former hole. What isn't in there is a whole lot of
debris from
the object that caused the whole mess. Most of it seems to have
vaporized.
Drinking water still affected
The irregular, unstable outer crater rim -- which extends 10 to
20 miles (16
to 32 kilometers) inland in Virginia -- appears to answer several
questions
about unusual phenomena in the region, including salty
groundwater and
earthquakes around the crater's perimeter.
Powars said the rim's instability, caused when the underlying
crust was
banged up during the impact, may explain the high seismic
activity in the
region. The rim is constantly shuffling and settling, triggering
seismic
waves.
The rim is also a boundary between salty groundwater within the
crater's
confines and fresh groundwater on the outside. Powars said about
2 million
people count on the region's groundwater, and experts have long
worried that
frequent intrusions of saltwater into the drinking water were
caused by over
pumping. Powars said the new explanation has helped utility
companies dig
wells outside the crater rim to more successfully search for
potable water.
Gohn expects to begin drilling at two sites in Virginia. Drilling
of a
1,500-foot hole just inside the crater rim in Mathews County,
Virginia was
expected to begin March 20. Work at a second site near Shadow,
Virginia is
planned to begin in June. This site is located well within the
ring-shaped
trough of the impact crater, and scientists expect to penetrate
the bottom
of the crater at a depth between 2,000 to 2,500 feet (3,220 and
4,025
meters).
Copyright 2001, Space.com
==========
(4) DEEP SPACE 1 LOADS UP FOR TREK TO COMET
From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109 TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov
Contact: Martha J. Heil (818) 354-0850
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
March 20, 2001
DEEP SPACE 1 LOADS UP FOR TREK TO COMET
NASA's Deep Space 1 spacecraft, sailing through the solar system
today, has
taken delivery of a new cargo: the latest software for its
ambitious
encounter with Comet Borrelly this September.
After successfully finishing its primary mission in 1999 as a
testing ground
for important new technologies, NASA approved a risky bonus
mission to Comet
Borrelly for Deep Space 1. There the spacecraft will take
black-and-white
pictures, use infrared pictures to find out the nature of
the comet's surface, measure and identify the gases coming from
the comet,
and measure the interaction of solar wind with the comet. To take
pictures
of the comet, Deep Space 1 must upgrade its software's pointing
system to
turn the spacecraft from a testbed for advanced technologies to a
chronicler
of Comet Borrelly.
"Deep Space 1's previous version of software, which was
transmitted to the
spacecraft nine months ago, has proven itself during the
surprisingly
successful flight through the solar system since then, but now
we're giving
the probe a new assignment," said Dr. Marc Rayman, the
project manager. "And
in order to prepare for this exciting and daring comet encounter,
the
software needs to be upgraded."
The spacecraft team will be checking the software, radioed to
Deep Space 1
throughout the week of March 5. The first check came when the
team actually
received a signal from the spacecraft after it shut the main
computer off
and restarted it. Since the software sent by the team works
well, the spacecraft sent a signal indicating it is healthy. Now
engineers
are giving the spacecraft's new software a thorough physical
checkup.
"The process of transmitting the new software to the
spacecraft, rebooting
the on-board computer to begin running it, verifying that the
spacecraft is
working properly with the new software and restoring the craft to
its cruise
configuration, all when the spacecraft is 318 million
kilometers (197 million miles) away, is a complex and tricky
operation, "
said Daniel Eldred, the Deep Space 1 mission manager.
The new software contains capabilities that will be needed when
the
spacecraft gets to Borrelly. The new commands will include
lessons that Deep
Space 1 learned in its 1999 encounter with asteroid Braille about
the
behavior of the spacecraft when it gets close to a solar system
object.
The spacecraft carries a device, part of the successful new
technology
system, which holds two cameras. One uses a conventional
charge-coupled
device detector, the other a new technology detector. The test
camera,
though performing its initial tests successfully, wasn't equipped
to deal
with the very dark object that Braille turned out to be. Small
bodies like
asteroids and comets are still a mystery. Since they're so small
and
distant, their exact size and shape can't usually be determined
from Earth.
Deep Space 1 plans to use its tried- and-true CCD camera to try
to snap
photos of Borrelly. The team will send commands to the new
software to stop
using the test camera and start using the CCD camera, which will
take a
larger picture with more light.
In late 1999, after the successful end of its primary mission,
Deep Space 1
lost its star tracker, and the spacecraft had to be reconfigured
to use the
photographic camera to orient itself by the stars around it. In
order to
take pictures of Borrelly, the camera can't align the spacecraft
and snap
photos of the comet at the same time. Instead, the spacecraft
will have to
rely on its fiber-optic gyroscopes to help maintain its
orientation. But the
gyros are not accurate enough by themselves, so the new software
will try to
correct for those inaccuracies. The new software is designed to
help the
camera stay pointed at the comet's nucleus during the 15 minutes
that the
camera will attempt to observe the comet.
Deep Space 1 was launched in October 1998 as part of NASA's New
Millennium
Program, which is managed by JPL for NASA's Office of Space
Science,
Washington, D.C. The California Institute of Technology in
Pasadena manages
JPL for NASA.
Deep Space 1 completed its primary mission testing ion propulsion
and 11
other advanced technologies in September 1999. NASA extended the
mission,
taking advantage of the ion propulsion and other systems to
target a chancy
but exciting encounter with the comet in September 2001. More
information
can be found on the Deep Space 1 Home Page at http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/
.
==========
(5) INTERNET-ENABLED EARTHQUAKE ALERT SYSTEM COMING
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/03/20/quake.warning.idg/index.html
From CNN, 20 March 2001
By John McLaughlin
(IDG) -- Last month, the citizens of Seattle dodged a big one --
a
6.8-magnitude earthquake that spared the city major damage only
because it
occurred miles below ground. To scientists at the California
Institute of
Technology and the U.S. Geological Survey, it was yet another
incentive to
push forward an ambitious Internet-enabled earthquake
early-warning system
for Southern California, the first of its kind in the U.S.
For the last five years, Caltech and the USGS have been upgrading
Southern
California's network of quake detection stations -- a system of
sensors that
digitally transmit the magnitude and velocity of earthquakes to
Caltech or
the USGS. The project costs $21 million and is funded largely by
the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The city of Sacramento will put up
$6.8 million
more to extend this "integrated seismic network" to
Northern California.
By the end of the year, when 700 stations are up and running,
Southern
California will be the best-monitored earthquake zone in the
world, with
sensors every nine miles. At that point, scientists can launch a
pilot early
warning program. Caltech is currently working on software to
broadcast quake
warnings over the Internet to emergency workers and local
authorities.
"We find out that something is going on at one of our
sensors almost at the
speed of light," says Jim Goltz, Caltech's manager of
earthquake programs.
"The delay between us knowing what is going on and the
ground motion may
give us time to get a warning out."
For instance, Goltz says a 7.5-magnitude earthquake at Bombay
Beach on the
San Andreas Fault would take about 75 seconds to reach
metropolitan Los
Angeles some 130 miles away. That might not seem like much time,
but it
could be enough to broadcast a warning and evacuate a school or
shut down
vulnerable segments of the power grid. Provided, of course, that
everyone's
Internet connection is working.
Other obstacles to an effective system abound. James Davis,
California's
state geologist, sees benefits to the early-warning program but
cautions
against raising the public's expectations.
He points out that the system will be of little use for quakes
that happen
too close to home. For instance, the 1994 Northridge quake hit 25
miles
outside of Los Angeles, killing 57 people and causing $40 billion
in damage.
If you live near a quake's epicenter, no warning will be early
enough.
Davis also notes that a 1991 survey found that many Southern
Californians
felt the cost of implementing an early-warning system did not
justify the
potential gains.
The brunt of that cost, which has not been determined, will be
borne by
corporations and local governments that would subscribe to the
alert
service.
The USGS and Caltech are conducting a survey of potential users,
focusing on
schools, emergency services, transport and utilities, and health
care
institutions. The results will decide the project's chances. Says
Caltech's
Goltz, "It all depends on whether it is feasible and whether
it is wanted."
He expects a pilot program with up to 10 organizations to begin
by the end
of the year and says that if all goes well an alert system could
be in place
within a decade. Someday, the Big One may be preceded by a
"One Minute
Warning" on your computer screen.
Copyright 2001, CNN
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(6) CHANNEL FIREBALL
From Neil Bone <bafb4@central.susx.ac.uk>
Having been away for a couple of days, I'm just catching up on
this one! I
have had, forwarded to me, a single report from a BAA member of a
fireball
at 18:53 UT on 2001 March 13, which would appear to be the event
reported on
CCNet. This was reported as a mag. -5 event descending from the
NE at
azimuth 160 from Epsom (51.33N, 0.27W) by Peter Mugridge. The
direction and
description appear consistent with the putative 'over the
Channel'.
The "meteor shower" report is yet another example of
the media minefield in
action. Events like this are either a "meteorite" or a
"meteor shower" in
the eyes of the press, and it seems to be a losing battle to try
to get the
average hack to use the correct terminology (I've tried, in vain,
on many
occasions!). It perhaps further confuses the issue to have as
valid
terminology a *meteorite* shower to describe the scatter of
numerous
fragments in the fall ellipse on occasons when something does
make it to
ground...
Neil Bone
Director, British Astronomical Association Meteor Section
==============
(7) CHANNEL FIREBALL
From Martin Hoffmann <Martin.Hoffmann@dlr.de>
Dear friends,
Yesterday I read the news of a possible meteor shower in CCNet 42
and
43/2001. Immediately I recalled having seen a bright meteor last
week and
having written a remark about it in
my notebook. Indeed this happened to be on March 13, 19:50 GMT
+/- 3
minutes. Although it was low in the northeastern sky it had an
estimated
brightness of mag -2, about Jupiter's brightness. It may have
reached mag -4
(Venus) where it has been overhead. That should have occurred
somewhere over
northwestern Poland, since I have observed it from just a few
kilometers
southeast of the city limits of Berlin. The object was visible
less than 2
seconds and left no visible train despite its brightness. I had
averted
vision when it became visible, but the final parts of its path
were pretty
exactly north to south in celestial coordinates in the northern
half of the
constellation of Bootes, where it split into two fragments near
Epsilon and
Sigma Bootis and disappeared. If this phenomenon is related to
the reports
from the channel has to be checked if there are reports on the
paths of
those.
regards
Martin Hoffmann
===========
(8) A RADICAL FUNDING POSSIBILITY FOR THE SPACEGUARD PROJECT?
From Michael Martin-Smith <martin@miff.demon.co.uk>
SETI@Home, The Planetary Society,
and Spaceguard
It is now 2 years since the launch of the distributed computer
screensaver,
SETI@Home, to home and office
computer users. This was a bid to save SETI in
the face of cutbacks in government funding, and to accomplish the
vast
computational task of analysing the huge amount of data
acquired by Project
Serendip in its brief period of official support.
Perhaps 50,000 client computers were expected at the beginnning.
Now, 2
years on, the number of participating computers is 2.85 million,
and the 3
million figure is likely to be reached this summer. Clearly,
something of
major and unexpected significance is going on.
Polls conducted at the SETI@Home
website show a great deal of untapped
idealism and concern for the Human future as well as
natural curiosity
about ETI. There is also a strong feeling of enjoyment at being
part of a
worldwide scientific effort of longterm significance, and a
feeling of
satisfaction that their computers, and the Internet, is at last
doing
something positive for Mankind. The possibility, albeit remote,
of "Making
History" is also a strong draw.
The world's largest Space support group, the Planetary Society,
www.planetary.org, has
figured largely in sponsoring and organizing this
phenomenon, but at this time is probably genuinely surprised at
what has
been unleashed. The Planetary Society also has a declared
interest in
Planetary Defence, Spaceguard, and NEOs - issues which are also
increasingly
in the public eye. It is widely agreed that first steps towards a
proper
Spaceguard programme include
1/ a network of dedicated telescopes- with skilled astronomers
and
appropriate training, records and computational assets for
discovery and
tracking of potential colliders, and
2/ a modest but regular programme of cheap space missions (like
NEAR) to study as many asteroids and comets as possible in order
to
characterise the consistency and composition of such bodies for
possible
deflection strategies, as well as for their intrinsic scientific
or
industrial value.
It is reasonable to propose that such a programme, based on
standardized
small space craft launched at one per 12-24 months, and the use
of private
launch contractors, plus observatories, could be run in the near
future for
c $150 millions per year.
I have little doubt that companies such as Jim
Benson's SpaceDev or Surrey
Satellites Technology Ltd( SSTL)would become able to do the space
segment of
this , given support.
The time is coming when it seems appropriate to consider whether
the 2.85
million and growing SETI@Home
community can be evolved into a new popular
human scientific /technological enterprise, for the good of
Humankind. This
would relieve the broader taxpaying masses of another space
programme, and
allow for steady developments in a useful cause.
The computing network and organizational structure exists in
embryo for a
popular Spaceguard/space programme to be built from this vast
pool of
enthusiasm; It could be run by the Planetary Society and
Spaceguard in
collaboration, and once in being, would owe no debt of
accountability to
politicians or taxation.
The radical suggested step to be taken would be the collection of
a $50 per
year sub from the clients of SETI@Home
in the cause of planetary defence- an
avowed interest of the Planetary Society. Remember that ALL
clients of
SETI@Home, by definition, either
own a computer or have access to one at
work so that this sub. would not in practice be very burdensome.
The key of course, is $50 per year times X millions, where X in
summer 2001
is 3 million people, and rising! Since such a programme
would provide
steady work for a space entrepreneur who would be incentivized to
work for
lower costs, cheaper launch systems would be a likely eventual
result. From
small acorns, mighty oaks can grow...?
Dr Michael Martin-Smith, author, Man Medicine and Space www.iuniverse.com
==========
(9) PLANETARY DEFENCE AND FUNDING PRIORITIES
From Jonathan Tate <spaceguard@dial.pipex.com>
Dear Benny,
I was interested to read the letter from Louis Friedman of the
Planetary
Society entitled "The UK Parliamentary Debate and
Consideration of Near
Earth Objects". I concur with much of his interesting
analysis of the
dichotomies involved in the development of a rational and
adequate NEO
policy. It is also encouraging to hear that the Planetary Society
is funding
observation programmes. Spaceguard UK has had a long and mutually
beneficial
relationship with the Planetary Society in the UK, and I hope
that this will
blossom further when the Spaceguard Centre opens its doors.
However, I am a little confused by Mr Friedman's statement that
"NEO
observations are important, interesting and justified but not
sufficiently
so to displace priorities in astronomy, environment or defense or
to
constitute a crisis that warrants economic policy changes."
I don't think
that anyone would dispute that there are environmental and
defence
priorities that are more immediate than that of NEO research (at
least until
a threat is identified), but what are the astronomical priorities
that
outweigh research into NEOs?
In my experience the participants in the field do recognize and
accept that
other issues may be more immediate and they have moved
significantly beyond
hand wringing. Indeed, many of the actions that Mr Friedman
suggests are in
train or at the planning stage already.
In the UK we have devoted considerable effort to briefing the
decision
makers on the concept of a low probability, but high consequence
event, and
they have grasped the notion. It is in this context that the Task
Force
report was written and received. There is no doubt that the
potential
hazard from NEOs is significant to warrant action on an
international scale,
but the extent of that action, especially in financial terms, is
miniscule
when weighed against the risk. For example, the total cost of
executing all
of the recommendations made by the Task Force would be less than
the price
of a single Harrier jump-jet.
As I indicated earlier, there are a multitude of problems facing
governments
around the world that are more immediate than the impact hazard.
I believe
that Mr Friedman is erroneous in saying that the NEO problem
isn't as big
as, for example, global warming; it is just not happening
now. Sadly a
problem like this often only becomes an issue after the event.
I quite agree that we have a challenge before us, but I would
caution that
the first principal of expeditionary operations is that one
secures the home
base before doing anything else. It may not be as glamorous
as going to
Mars, but most of the public would agree that it is infinitely
more
important.
Jay Tate
==============
(10) ONE WEEK'S PRACTICAL "TIMES"
From Hermann Burchard <burchar@mail.math.okstate.edu>
Dear Benny,
thanks are due to your government, and to all of the UK
Spaceguard folks,
for their farsighted attitude on spaceguard issues, from all non
UK
citizens/non subjects of HM. As a German citizen and long-term US
resident I
would like to see as much involvement by our respective
government. One
thing often neglected is that even a seemingly minor impact could
be
devastating if it should occur near a toxic site or a nuclear
plant or
depot.
Regarding the remark in TIMES (Higher Ed Suppl 16 Mar):
"One problem is a vast population of objects that would not
wipe out
humankind on impact, but are capable of devastating a city and
are too
small for practical detection [sic]."
Perhaps with this in mind, there is some discussion of radar by
Duncan Steel
in his book "Rogue Asteroids..". Familiar to readers of
these pages, he
explains convincingly and in detail why this would not do any
good for
extended searches over distances. But, he does seem to leave open
the
possibility for orbit determination in the approach phase.
Suppose for the sake of discussion that a week's notice will be
required
during approach to ready diversionary defenses against 100 meter
or larger
objects not cataloged by NEO searches. Rough calculations will
show that
Ka-band microwave interferometry with a 2000 km baseline should
be able to
find these a week in advance of impact if moving at typical
speeds of 30
km/sec. Orbiting satellites could be stationed around the globe
to look for
them. Ground based Ku-band radar can be used with about double
the base line
(short of detailed design this picture probably is simplistic or
may turn
out to be unrealistic as to for example power requirements - I
must defer to
microwave engineers).
Most of the objects should belong to known meteor streams. This
could help
to narrow down search efforts.
Best regards,
Hermann Burchard
============
(11) MODERN ASTRONOMY: EYES WIDE SHUT?
From Jon Richfield <richfield@telkomsa.net>
Though I am neither an astronomer nor anything like it, I take
the point and
appreciate the passion of Jonathan Tate's open letter
"MODERN ASTRONOMY:
EYES WIDE SHUT?" Still, I trust that, bearing in mind my
lack of
professional competence in the field, he will accept an open
reply, in a
dispassionate spirit. He may ignore it in good conscience,
because many as
a reader would point out, niggling about academic points while
interplanetary hail rains down is like earranging the proverbial
deck chairs
on the Titanic, but I plead that the bandwidth I consume would
have done
precious little to divert a bolide, and anyway, rearranging deck
chairs not
only does little harm; it might instil a worthwhile sense of
neatness in
some survivor, if any.
And I think that the open letter was untidy in concept.
For instance:
>Some modern astronomers, glued to their computer screens or
grappling with the baffling mysteries of the cosmos, would prefer
to
ignore the fact that the roots of their profession lie in
"superstition".<
Whether they are interested in the nature of the origin of their
discipline
or not, and whether it involved superstition or not, and whether
they prefer
to ignore it or not, are irrelevant to the question of their
responsibility
and contribution to dealing with the threat of NEOs.
>Ancient man was quite convinced that cosmic influences had a
significant part to play in his way of life and continued
well-being.
This conviction is clear in the stories and myths from around the
world concerning conflict and disaster meted out from the skies,
usually by
omnipotent "gods". <
This has little relevance to catastrophism. Where it IS relevant
is in that
the roots of astronomy were regarded as an applied discipline
rather than
academic (what are the gods saying or sending?) A major
functional point of
the letter is that astronomy is still (increasingly?) an
applied discipline
(what can we learn from out there, what is on the way and what
are our
options for dealing with it?) And that is not a question of
catastrophism.
>This catastrophist view of the cosmos dominated until the Age
of
Reason when Newtonian principles turned the unknown and
unpredictable
universe into a benign, mechanical system and Darwinism spawned
the
concept of gradual evolution over extended periods of time. <
Nothing of the kind. There was nothing essentially either
uniformitarianist
or catastrophist about Darwinism, whether gradualist or
punctuationist. Nor
is there anything unreasonable about catastrophe as a concept.
Evolution as
a process would have plugged on whether there were catastrophes
or not for
as long as there were survivors in a condition to evolve.
Newton's work
pre-dated the uniformitarianist enthusiasms of the late
nineteenth century
by some 150 years and favoured neither uniformitarianism nor
catastrophism.
Catastrophes occurred very much according to Newtonian laws as
their role
was understood, until thermodynamics, Einsteinian relativity and
QM were
developed.
And those old Newtonian laws remained the dominant first
approximation for
dealing with nature even thereafter.
>In the resulting predictable, gradualist cosmos there was no
place
for catastrophism or major, sudden changes in the global
environment.<
The resulting cosmos may have been considered predictable at the
time,
before QM, chaos and information theory emerged, but
predictability does not
imply the impossibility of catastrophic events. The very concept
of
catastrophism emerged in an age very conscious of Newton's work,
as a class
of increasingly facile ad hoc explanations for geological and
geographical
facts and for the existence of fossils of extinct
beasts.
>In the third quarter of the twentieth century the realisation
dawned that Darwinian evolution has been punctuated by massive
catastrophic events, causing major redirection in biological and
geographic evolution. Past prejudice against catastrophist
notions is ebbing
away as the evidence builds, and the reality of major impacts is
no longer
in doubt. <
Punctuationism in Darwinism has precious little to do with
catastrophes. It
also had precious little effect on mainstream Darwinism, being
comfortably
subsumed in gradualism. Only evolutionists who for some reason
were wedded
to the idea of straight-line rates of change could have been
bothered and
they were something of a figure of fun even when I was a student,
well
before the punctuationist hoo-hah. Punctuational events typically
lasted of
the order of a thousand or even a million years and continuous
adaptation
has been demonstrated to happen as well.
>Perhaps it wasn't entirely superstition after all.<
Superstition never came into it. Catastrophism had been so abused
to explain
away whatever happened to be inconvenient to anyone's theory,
that it fell
into disrepute. Furthermore, as geology moved out of the dark
ages with the
work of especially Hutton and Lyell in the 19th
century, it was seen as useful to assume that events in the past
had obeyed
the same rules as today. This permitted one for instance,
to deduce the
behaviour and history of geological features and estimate the age
of rocks
and strata. The uniformitarian view essentially demanded
that catastrophe
not be invoked as an explanation unless there were particular
evidence for
it. In short, uniformitarian explanation displaced
catastrophe, not as the
only possible hypothesis, but as the default hypothesis.
The fact that lazy
thinkers sometimes tended to abuse this convention and elevate
default to
dogma, was quite another matter; we do not have to waste time on
the abuses
of yesteryear.
Uniformitarianism as she is currently spoke, might be described
as the view
that the laws of nature are seen as invariant from the
perspective of every
observer.
That is fully compatible with the possibility or prospect of
catastrophes.
>The widening appreciation of the hazard posed by asteroids
and
comets should be causing many researchers, especially astronomers
to
pause for thought. Astronomy developed as a utilitarian science
with
practical, measurable outputs mainly concerned with navigation
and the
measurement of time. Once these problems had been licked,
astronomers were
free to engage in more esoteric, and arguably less
"useful"
pursuits. But now there is a genuine call for the astronomical
profession
to demonstrate its usefulness to the public who, in the final
analysis,
pay the bills.<
One notes in passing that the appreciation of the nature and in
fact the
very existence and nature of the NEO threat was the product of
just those
'more esoteric, and arguably less "useful" pursuits'.
Nor was it a
negligible product; right into the seventies at least,
explanations proposed
for the craterless Tunguska event, ranged from antimatter to mini
black
holes!
And in also passing, just what kind of competent research,
academic or
applied, is not calculated to have " practical, measurable
outputs"?
>...But is the problem strictly scientific? Scientists like to
think
that they are concerned with the acquisition and interpretation
of new
data. <
Hardly! That may be the daily slog of many a scientist's work,
but I
recommend a brief course in elementary scientific philosophy
before
propounding such views. In particular, try to distinguish
science from
laboratory work, laboratory work from technology, technology from
engineering, and engineering from policy and politics.
>To study asteroids and comets the researcher needs to study
only a
representative sample; there is no need to find them all;<
That depends on his line of research. The sample might be all he
needs for
characterising the qualitative nature of the class of objects,
but it
excludes whole classes of understanding, both of their incidence
and of
their bulk behaviour, both being valid fields for scientific
study, not to
mention necessary data for engineers and planners. Analogously,
one might
examine every possible nature of water molecule without achieving
an
adequate understanding of water as a liquid, solid or gas, of
surf, rain or
ocean, all of which are valid subjects for scientific
investigation. The
range of types and behaviours, frequency, distribution and
statistical
threat of bodies, whether interstellar wanderers, or of our solar
system's
belts, clouds and asteroids, is perfectly valid subject matter
for
scientific investigation, as well as for our engineers and
politicians.
> a planetary defence programme would have to strive to do
just
that. The funding and resources required to detect and track all
NEOs
cannot therefore be justified on research grounds.<
That depends on the available resources and the subjective
probability of
the anticipated output of the programme paying its way in the
fullness of
time. There is no problem in justifying the work as such as being
valid
material for scientific study, whether abstract or applied.
>Defence is usually the prerogative of the military, but there
is
resistance from the defence establishment to becoming involved in
planetary defence; it is classed as a problem for the scientists.
So
therein lies a problem.<
NEO defence is no more a problem for the scientists than weapons
research
is. Scientists may, even must, be involved, but it is essentially
an
engineering and policy problem.
>There is a small core of professional astronomers that have
had the
courage to speak out about the impact hazard, and to point out
the
opportunity for the profession to engage in a subject that the
public can
understand and appreciate. However, within the wider astronomical
community there is still some apparent disagreement, some
acrimonious, over
the nature and extent of the threat. It is natural for scientists
to
disagree, indeed that is the nature of the scientific method, but
even the
most ardent disbeliever cannot dispute at least the possibility
of a
significant threat. After all, who could be better placed to be
aware of
the facts than astronomers? Ignorance is not an option for
professionals.<
The question of the courage and smallness of the core and of the
scope of
disagreement is greatly overblown in this matter. Most of the
flap is in the
media. No one is being threatened with the Inquisition or the
Stake or even
the Comfy Chair. That people disagree is true enough, but also
fair enough.
Scientists are not paid specifically for agreeing, though
disagreement
without acrimony tends to be pleasanter than the
alternatives.
And ignorance is most emphatically an option for professionals. A
professional who refuses to acknowledge unavoidable ignorance is
unfit to
practice, whether he is a lawyer, a scientist, an engineer or a
doctor. What
else is he to do? Invent a factual basis for his
recommendations? (For
professional politicians on the other hand, one necessarily makes
special
allowances and consults the archives of "Yes Minister"
for guidance.)
>Given the consequences of major impact events it is plainly
not
right to oppose programmes aimed at preventing them; that would
be
playing dice with the survival of the human species. Opposing
research
into the NEO threat because such programmes might divert funding
from
one's particular project may be quite understandable from a very
narrow
perspective, but it is an abrogation of the responsibility of
science to
safeguard humankind<
Whether to oppose a programme or not, should be decided not only
on the
basis of whether its objectives are desirable, but how promising
they seem
to be. We have to play dice with the survival of the human
species; we have
no choice. That is the way the universe works and that is the
scope of our
competence. Every decision we make, if wrong enough, whether
interventionist
or laissez faire, no matter how reasonable, might prove to be
futile or
fatal. But again, though scientists could and should contribute
to policy
and action as their conscience and competence permit, the
decisions are not
science as such.
The question of "responsibility of science" is moot, to
put it mildly. The
question of it being the "responsibility of science" to
safeguard humankind
is ridiculous! If science and the safeguarding of humankind were
to come
together meaningfully, they would do so in the social
responsibility of the relevant scientists, not of science as an
abstract
entity.
>On the other hand, to support a multi disciplinary programme
with
such potential public interest can only thrust astronomy into the
public
eye as a useful and responsible profession. Perhaps the time has
come for astronomers to consider their position in society with
care.
Precisely what is astronomy for? In years gone by the answer was
clear, but
it is considerably less so now. No one would dispute the value of
pure
research, but is the expenditure required justified in the face
of a
real, practical threat to our way of life? Few would be impressed
with
a fire service that spent its time conducting detailed studies
into major
disaster scenarios while its own fire station burned to the
ground.<
Again, confusion of roles between that of the scientist and the
engineer.
They may happen to be the same person or if not, one would hope
that they
would co-operate, but it does not follow that every counter of
smudges in
emulsions would do anyone a favour by dropping his work to design
NEO
deflection bombs.
>... Convincing the politicians of the need for action would
have
been easier with more support from the scientific community, but,
with a
few notable exceptions (I won't embarrass them by listing names -
or
myself when I forget one) the overwhelming response from the
astronomical community, both professional and amateur, has
largely been one
of indifference.<
It is not easy to evaluate this claim. Is the suggestion that all
astronomers should have acted in concert, even those whose
expertise dealt
with matters outside the solar system, and who had little more
appreciation
of the problem than scientifically literate members of the
public? Or that
NEO experts should have proselytised all astronomers before going
public?
Surely not, but if not, then what? Is there something
reprehensible about
dissenting opinion, or about failure of
anyone to achieve full competence in all branches of
astronomy?
>Given the validated scale of the impact hazard, and the
opportunities for public education in astronomy and science in
general,
I have difficulty in understanding the apparent reluctance of the
astronomical community to grasp this opportunity to protect and
educate
their fellow man.<
Perhaps, but I think that we could work at a slightly more mature
thesis
before presenting a position paper along these lines.
Thanks for your attention.
Jon Richfield
=========
(12) PLATINIUM GROUP ELEMENTS
From Ibrahim Uysal <iuysal@ktu.edu.tr>
Hello...
My name is Ibrahim Uysal. I am a postgraduate student at the at
the
Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Geology in
Turkey. "I am
interested in platinium group elements in ofiolitic complexes in
Turkey". I
saw your page and some publications while I was searching
about this
subject. But, I couldn't reach to the publications. If you help
me about how
I can get them, I will be very happy. The publications which I
need to get
are written below. Thanks very much already...
Your sincerelly
Ibrahim UYSAL
Karadeniz Technical University.
Department of Geology.
61080 Trabzon / TURKEY
(6) THE K/T BOUNDARY & PLATINUM GROUP ELEMENTS
Q.L. Hou et al., CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE
(7) THE PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETING PLATINIUM-GROUP ELEMENTS IN
GEOCHEMISTRY
I. McDonald, UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational use
only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced
for any other
purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. The
fully
indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be found
at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles
and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily reflect the
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this
network.
*
CCNet CLIMATE SCARES & CLIMATE CHANGE, 22 March 2001
----------------------------------------------------
"I am no supporter of Mr Bush nor of "smokestack
utilities" (Leader,
March 16), but I am passionate about truth and honesty in
science. In
the last three months, a series of heavyweight scientific papers
have
appeared in journals such as Nature and Climate Research, showing
incontrovertibly the "incomplete state of scientific
knowledge" about
climate change. The critical focus has been on the role of water
vapour,
which is unquestionably the most important "greenhouse"
gas, not
carbon dioxide; the geological relationships between carbon
dioxide and
temperature; the many missing, or little-known variables, in the
main
climate models, including soot and "Pacific" vents; and
the need to
correct many temperature measurements, especially those over the
oceans. One
paper from the prestigious Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics,
concludes that: "Our review of the literature has shown that
GCMs
[climate models] are not sufficiently robust to provide an
understanding of the potential effects of CO2 on climate
necessary for
public discussion." It is surely time in the UK for a more
adult
scientific openness about the limitations of our current
knowledge.
Emissions may be politically important, but their precise
scientific role
has been seriously questioned."
--Prof Philip Stott, University of London, The Guardian, 19
March 2001
(1) COLD SNAP THREATENS REIGN OF MONARCH BUTTERFLY
The Times, 19 March 2001
(2) SCIENTISTS LAUNCH ASIAN DUST STUDY
Yahoo! News, 20 March 2001
(3) TEMPERATURE IN UPPER ATMOSPHERE MEASURED AT NORTH AND SOUTH
POLES
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(4) WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE: GLOBAL WARMING IS THREATENING
YOUR SWISS SKI
RESORTS!
Yahoo! News, 21 March 2001
(5) STUDY IN TREES IN MONGOLIA, EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Earth Times News Service, 19 March 2001
(6) HARSH WINTER JEOPARDIZES FOOD SUPPLIES IN MONGOLIA
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations, February 2001
(7) NASA PLANS STUDY ON 'SUN-EARTH' SYSTEM WHICH AFFECTS LIFE
& SOCIETY
The Indian Financial Express, 19 March 2001
(8) TAKING PRECAUTION VS PROVING A NEGATIVE
TechCentralStation, 19 March 2001
(9) GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Harvey Leifert <HLeifert@agu.org>
(10) TEMPERATURE: THE HEALTH EFFECTS
CO2 Science Magazine, 21 March 2001
(11) VARIABILITY OF CLIMATE IN EARLY MODERN TIMES
E. Xoplaki et al.,
(12) CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICISM IS A NOBLE CALLING
David Wojick (dwojick@shentel.net)
(13) COLD SPELLS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING?
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
===============
(1) COLD SNAP THREATENS REIGN OF MONARCH BUTTERFLY
From The Times, 19 March 2001
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-100981,00.html
FROM GABRIELLA GAMINI, SOUTH AMERICA CORRESPONDENT
MEXICAN environmental authorities have blamed an unprecedented
cold spell in
the sprawling forests of Michoacan state for the death of more
than 22
million Monarch butterflies, which habitually migrate to the
region to
escape the winter chill in Canada.
Millions of the bright orange butterflies (Danaus plexippus),
which usually
form a vibrant coloured carpet over the San Andres mountains in
the west of
Michoacan, have been found dead since the beginning of this year.
At first environmentalists believed that loggers operating
illegally in the
forests of Michoacan were deliberately killing the butterflies
with
pesticides.
The Mexican Government had last year set aside a 128,440-acre
region of the
forest as a sanctuary for the butterflies after an alarming study
showed
that illegal logging had caused the destruction of 44 per cent of
the native
forests since 1971.
A Mexican poet, Homero Arijdis, who heads Grupo de los Cien
(Group of 100),
a non-governmental, environmental organisation, accused timber
merchants of
spraying the butterflies with pesticides in an attempt to
appropriate the
sanctuary.
Señor Aridjis said that the use of pesticides would have a
serious effect on
the reproductive process of the butterflies in coming years.
"This environmental tragedy, which has killed millions of
Monarch
butterflies, could permanently alter their annual migration
pattern," he
said.
"It may be that the forests of Michoacan will never see
those wonderful
fluttering orange carpet effects created by the butterflies ever
again."
But Mexico's environmental authority, the Federal Procurate for
the
Protection of the Environment (Profeba), said last week that
tests on the
dead butterflies had "not shown intoxication from
pesticides".
"The butterflies died because of the unusual, intense cold
which we have had
in the Michoacan state for the past months," a spokesman for
Profeba said.
Every year, beginning in November, the butterflies travel 2,500
miles to
escape the Canadian winter in favour of the temperate climate of
Mexico's
central state, 70 miles west of the capital, Mexico City.
For about five months the trees in the nature sanctuary are
covered in the
butterflies, which draw hundreds of tourists from around the
world to the
area every year. At the end of March, the butterflies return
north for
springtime breeding.
But this year the temperatures have been unusually low, reaching
freezing
point at night. The Michoacan nature sanctuary's rangers have
found large
numbers of the dead butterflies on frost-covered ground.
Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This
============
(2) SCIENTISTS LAUNCH ASIAN DUST STUDY
From Yahoo! News, 20 March 2001
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010320/sc/dust_climate_1.html
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - More than 100 scientists are taking to the air
and sea to
measure the smoke, dust and other particles spewed into the
atmosphere in
Asia. They are seeking answers to one of the fundamental unknowns
of global
change: How do these materials affect our climate?
Scientists know the effect of aerosols on climate is large,
"but the
uncertainties are huge," researcher Barry Huebert of the
University of
Hawaii said Tuesday at a briefing on the experiment.
Huebert was heading for Colorado to hop a National Science
Foundation (news
- web sites) C-130 research plane bound for Japan to join in the
ACE-Asia
Project.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's research
vessel Ronald
H. Brown is already en route with 33 scientists aboard. Ships and
planes
from Japan, Korea and Australia are also taking part in the
effort through
mid-May.
In recent years many scientists have grown concerned about the
possibility
of global warming and much of their focus has been on the
increasing amounts
of gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. The theory
is that
these gases can trap heat from the sun, causing the planet to
warm.
But aerosols - tiny particles of dust, smoke, minerals and
materials - also
have a significant impact. Studies have shown some of these can
add to the
warming and others can cause cooling.
"Aerosols play a very significant role in the world's
climate system," said
David Evans, NOAA assistant administrator. "It's clearly a
place where we
need to make advances in our understanding."
Indeed, Huebert said their impact may be as large as that of the
so-called
greenhouse gases.
But scientists don't know in detail which aerosols cause warming
and which
cool and how much they affect the atmosphere. That's what they
want to
learn.
ACE-Asia stands for Aerosol Characterization Experiments-Asia.
Other studies
have been done in Australia, Europe and, on a smaller scale, on
the East
Coast of the United States.
Huebert said this large effort is being undertaken because Asia
is
developing, and it will give researchers a chance to look at the
aerosols
produced now and compare them with how things change in a few
years.
Asia produces large amounts of dust from deserts and poor farming
practices,
smoke from factories, increasing amounts of chemicals, minerals
and other
particles.
The timing is important. Dust storms occur in winter over the
high deserts
sending dense plumes over the big cities of China, Japan, and
Korea in
spring. By summer, thunderstorms change the circulation,
disrupting the
large dust plumes and raining out much of the pollution.
The ship- and land-based researchers will be able to measure the
sun's
radiation arriving at the ground, satellites will measure the
Earth's
radiation upward and the reflected solar radiation and the
airplanes will
fly through the middle measuring the amount and types of
aerosols, he said.
Anne-Marie Schmoltner of the National Science Foundation said
instruments on
the C-130 will measure aerosol particle size, the number of
particles, their
chemistry and how the aerosols affect light.
The particles can travel long distances. For example, Asian dust
has been
measured in Hawaii and even on the west coast of the United
States and
particles from Africa's Sahara desert have been known to drift as
far as
Florida and the Caribbean.
The daily activities of the 130 scientists taking part are being
directed by
Richard Dirks of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research. UCAR,
based in Colorado, is a consortium of university-based
atmospheric
researchers.
"The science is essential to understanding how human
activities are
affecting the global climate. The experiment is also
groundbreaking in its
collaboration among countries that have not worked together in
the past and
historically have been cautious about sharing data," Dirks
said in a
statement.
Besides NOAA and NSF, the project is supported by the Office of
Naval
Research, NASA (news - web sites) and research organizations in
Australia,
China, France, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom.
Copyright 2001, AP
=============
(3) TEMPERATURE IN UPPER ATMOSPHERE MEASURED AT NORTH AND SOUTH
POLES
From Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
News Bureau
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
807 South Wright Street. Suite 520 East
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6219
Telephone 217 333-1085, Fax 217 244-0161
Contact:
James E. Kloeppel, Physical Sciences Editor
(217) 244-1073; kloeppel@uiuc.edu
Harvey Leifert, American Geophysical Union
(202) 777-7507; hleifert@agu.org
3/19/2001
Temperature in upper atmosphere measured at North and South poles
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- A sensitive laser radar (lidar) system, first
deployed
over Okinawa, Japan, to observe meteor trails during the 1998
Leonid meteor
shower, has now been used to probe temperatures in the upper
atmosphere over
both geographic poles.
As reported in the April 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters,
scientists
at the University of Illinois used a specially designed lidar
system to
obtain the first measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures,
iron
densities and polar mesospheric clouds over the North and South
poles.
"Measuring temperature profiles over the poles is essential
for validating
global circulation models and for providing a baseline for
assessing the
impact of global warming over the coming decades," said team
leader Chester
Gardner, a UI professor of electrical and computer engineering.
"Until now,
we were limited to measurements taken with balloon-borne sensors
to
altitudes of less than 20 miles."
In collaboration with scientists at The Aerospace Corp. and the
National
Center for Atmospheric Research, Gardner and his UI colleagues --
professor
George Papen, research scientist Xinzhao Chu and graduate student
Weilin Pan
-- developed a more robust lidar system for measuring temperature
profiles
from the middle of the stratosphere (about 20 miles up) to the
lower
thermosphere at the edge of space (about 70 miles above Earth).
The system
uses two powerful lasers operating in the near ultraviolet region
of the
spectrum and two telescopes to detect the laser pulses reflected
from the
atmosphere.
The researchers use two techniques for determining temperature.
For
altitudes up to 50 miles, the amount of laser light reflected
from air
molecules is measured and used to derive the temperature profile.
For higher
altitudes, scattering of the laser beams from iron atoms --
deposited in the
upper atmosphere by meteoric ablation -- is measured.
In June 1999, the lidar system was flown over the North Pole to
obtain
temperature and iron density measurements during the Arctic
Mesopause
Temperature Study. Six months later, the instrument was taken to
the
Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station where it is now being used to
measure the
atmosphere temperature structure throughout the year. The
National Science
Foundation provided funding for the two measurement campaigns.
"Temperature profiles obtained in the thermosphere over the
North Pole on
June 21, 1999, and in the mesopause region over the South Pole on
Jan. 27,
2000, agreed closely with model predictions," Gardner said.
"Significant
departures from the model were observed during the austral fall,
however. On
May 8, 2000, for example, the lower mesosphere was about 20
degrees
[Celsius] warmer and the upper mesosphere was about 20 degrees
[Celsius]
cooler than predicted."
Gardner and his colleagues also measured the heights of polar
mesospheric
clouds that formed over each of the poles during mid-summer.
Unlike the
lower atmosphere, the upper atmosphere is colder during summer
than in
winter. Polar mesospheric clouds form over the summertime polar
caps when
temperatures fall below minus 125 degrees Celsius.
These clouds are the highest on Earth, forming at an altitude of
about 52
miles. Their brightness and geographic extent have been
increasing during
the past four decades. It is thought that these changes may be
related to
increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane,
which in the
upper atmosphere lead to cooler temperatures and increasing
levels of water
vapor. Surprisingly, the altitudes of the polar mesospheric
clouds over the
South Pole were consistently one to two miles higher than those
over the
North Pole.
"Higher polar mesospheric clouds may be an indication of
stronger upwelling
in the summer mesosphere over Antarctica compared with the North
polar cap,"
Gardner said. "Stronger upwelling would result in a cooler
mesopause
region."
[NOTE: Images supporting this release are available at
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/poles.html]
==============
(4) WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE: GLOBAL WARMING IS THREATENING
YOUR SWISS SKI
RESORTS!
From Yahoo! News, 21 March 2001
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010319/sc/environment_climate_dc_4.html
Globakl Warming could put Palm Trees in Swiss Apls
BERNE (Reuters) - Global warming (news - web sites) could give
the Swiss
Alps a Mediterranean climate within decades and boost the number
of severe
storms, experts said Monday.
Greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere are expected to warm
up the
entire world's climate over the next 50 to 100 years. But the
Alps stand to
be more acutely affected than elsewhere, with potentially dire
consequences
for low-lying ski resorts, they said.
Computers simulating climate trends suggested that the
temperature in the
Alps could rise by five degrees centigrade over the next century,
said
Martin Beniston, a professor at Freiburg University's
geographical
institute.
``At the same time precipitation should increase in winter and
tend to
decline in summer. In other words, the climate in Switzerland
could in
future be similar to the current Mediterranean climate,'' he told
a news
conference.
Beniston, a member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
(IPCC), said that the number and severity of extreme storms,
downpours and
hailstorms would increase.
He was outlining at a seminar the IPCC's latest findings on
global warming
and its potential impact on the Alps region.
Temperatures in the mountain chain rose one degree between 1961
and 1990,
above the global average of 0.6 degree points since the start of
the 20th
Century, the Swiss Federal Environmental Office noted. Amounts of
precipitation also rose by above-average levels.
The office said ski resorts below 1,200 to 1,800 meters (3,600 to
5,400
feet) would have less snow. Global warming could also disrupt
hydroelectric
power plants, reservoirs and agriculture.
Switzerland last year adopted legislation aimed at reducing
carbon dioxide
emissions by 10 percent compared to 1990 levels. It is now
negotiating with
companies on how to achieve this goal by 2010.
Copyright 2001, Reuters
=============
(5) STUDY IN TREES IN MONGOLIA, EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
From the Earth Times News Service, 19 March 2001
http://www.earthtimes.org/mar/environmentstudyoftreesmar19_01.htm
By ANNE SILVERSTEIN
With evidence of global warming continuing to mount, scientists
at Columbia
University have added what is perhaps only a footnote to the big
picture but
compelling information nonetheless: Trees in a remote forest in
Mongolia are
showing unexpected rapid growth, indicating that temperatures
have risen
there.
A new study, which examined tree growth rings to chronicle growth
patterns
as well as temperature swings, details trends from the 3rd
Century to today.
"The results suggest that the temperatures in Mongolia rose
to their highest
in the past millennium, reaching their peak in the 20th
Century," said head
researcher Rosanne D'Arrigo of the Tree Ring Lab at Columbia
University's
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York.
"The 1999 ring, the
widest, indicates the highest temperature reached in this region
in the past
thousand years."
"This is an important piece of the puzzle on global
warming," said D'Arrigo,
who noted that Mongolia was essentially closed to Western
researchers until
10 years ago and that very few records of past climates exist for
northern
Asia. "Our results from Mongolia fit into the overall
picture of warming
indicated for other areas of the globe," she said.
Studies like these help scientists compare information from
around the world
to help determine whether the gradual warming trend of the
Earth's climate
is primarily human-induced or a natural phenomenon.
The study, funded by the National Science Foundation's Earth
System History
and Paleoclimatology programs, was published recently in the
journal
Geophysical Research Letters.
Copyright © 2000 The Earth Times All rights reserved.
===============
(6) HARSH WINTER JEOPARDIZES FOOD SUPPLIES IN MONGOLIA
From Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations,
February 2001
http://www.fao.org/news/global/GW0102-e.htm
Mongolia is facing its second devastating winter in a row, which
will
greatly exacerbate already serious food supply problems. Last
year, the
worst winter in decades undermined the food security of large
numbers of
people, especially nomadic herders. Now, thick snow has once
again blanketed
livestock pastures where herds usually feed in winter.
Temperatures have
fallen to as low as minus 50° Celsius. Already, the harsh winter
has killed
about 600 000 animals.
One third of the population relies entirely on animal husbandry
for its
livelihood. With more snow forecast for February and March, it is
projected
that several million livestock could be lost this year. The
current
livestock losses come on top of 3 million animals lost in
1999/2000, about
10 percent of the total herd.
The adverse weather also poses considerable problems for
transporting food
and medical supplies to areas where the population is
particularly
vulnerable to food shortages. The cold winter follows a summer
drought,
which reduced the fodder crop for animals, making this the second
year in
succession that recovery in feed and fodder has not been
possible. The
situation is expected to deteriorate further as the winter
progresses. The
implications for food security are immense, given the country's
reliance on
the livestock sector for meat and milk as well as foreign
exchange.
Current food shortages follow several years in which domestic
grain
production fell due to structural changes in the economy. State
farms, which
were heavily subsidized, have been dismantled in favour of
private
enterprises. Many groups who were formerly dependent on state
employment and
welfare are now exposed to economic uncertainties due to limited
alternative
earning potential. High levels of chronic malnutrition have been
reported in
a number of nomadic areas.
In January, FAO participated in a UN interagency mission to
Mongolia to
appraise the situation, resulting in the launch of a UN appeal
for US$7
million in emergency assistance to help vulnerable populations in
the most
severely affected provinces. The appeal also focused on building
the
country's capacity to prepare for emergencies.
5 February 2001
========
(7) NASA PLANS STUDY ON 'SUN-EARTH' SYSTEM WHICH AFFECTS LIFE
& SOCIETY
From The Indian Financial Express, 19 March 2001
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe/daily/20010319/fec19059.html
Mumbai, March 18: The US National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
(Nasa) has initiated a new programme, `Living With a Star' (LWS),
to study
those aspects of sun-earth system that affects life and society.
The goal of this new initiative, costing US$1.5 billion for the
next 10
years, is to develop scientific understanding necessary to enable
the US and
other global participants to effectively address these aspects of
the
sun-earth system, according to Dr Madhulika Guhathakurta, chief
programme
scientist, Nasa headquarters, Washington.
This was for the first time that Nasa has taken such a project to
study how
the sun affects/acts on the day to day life on earth in a 11-year
solar
cycle, she said.
Delivering a talk on `LWS' at the `International Chapman
Conference on
Storm-Substorm Relationship' which concluded at Lonavala near
here on
Friday, she said, in the past, all Nasa missions were driven by
fundamental
science questions.
But this mission would be different in finding the aspects that
affect life
of living things on earth in real time like human radiation
exposure,
climate change (past and future), surface warming, ozone
depletion and
recovery, Guhathakurta said adding that ``we want generous
participation
from India and other countries.''
The first mission of this project is a `solar dynamics
observatory' and is
expected to be launched in 2006, she added. The objectives of the
programme
include identifying and understanding variable sources of mass
and energy
emanating from the sun that cause changes in the environment with
societal
consequences, including the habitability of earth, use of
technology and the
exploration of space, Guhathakurta said. "We will also
identify and
understand the reactions of geospace regions whose variability
has societal
impact and space weather hazards," she said. It would extend
our knowledge
and understanding and would help to explore extreme
solar-terrestrial
environments and implications for life and habitability beyond
earth,
especially in moon and Mars, she added.
Copyright © 2001 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
===========
(8) TAKING PRECAUTION VS PROVING A NEGATIVE
From TechCentralStation, 19 March 2001
http://www.techcentralstation.com/EnviroScienceTechnology.asp?ID=39
When tending the garden of environmental policy, one would always
prefer to
be planting pretty flowers, and finding better ways to protect
safety,
health, and environmental quality. Sometimes, however, one
is forced to
stoop to pluck a weed. One such weed that has escaped its
proper place in
the garden is called the "precautionary principle."
In the debate over environmental policies ranging from global
warming to
genetic engineering, advocacy groups such as Greenpeace want to
replace
traditional risk-based approaches to managing environmental risk
with a
"precautionary principle" that presumes an activity
guilty until proven
innocent. Under the precautionary principle, the burden of proof
for
demonstrating safety is placed on the group seeking to develop
something,
not on those claiming that an activity or product poses a risk to
others.
The precautionary principle, as formulated at a meeting of
academics called
the Wingspread Conference, goes like this: "When an activity
raises threats
of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary
measures should be
taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully
established
scientifically."
As Joan D'Argo of Greenpeace elaborates, "Rather than our
health and our
children's health being sacrificed for industry greed, the
Precautionary
Principle states that it is the polluters who must prove that
their products
or manufacturing processes are not likely to harm the environment
or human health. Anything less, would be using the environment
and our
bodies as a large scale laboratory to gather evidence of harm, a
morally
unacceptable principle."
Now, everyone is for protecting children, and there's nothing
wrong with
caution. In fact, current environmental policy has strong
"precautionary
principles" built in. For example, before one can build any
major
construction works in many areas, one must complete an
environmental impact
report that evaluates what possible environmental damages might
be done, and
how those damages might be ameliorated. Before one can market a
drug, one
must test it for safety and efficacy. Few would argue that
the world would
be a safer place if drugs weren't safety-tested before being
given to human
beings.
But this concept, a flower in the right part of the policy
garden, becomes a
weed when it migrates to other areas. Indeed, when applied to
subtle risks,
the precautionary principle is more properly labeled the
"prove a negative"
principle. And proving a negative, as we know, is an impossible
task.
Perhaps that's the point. As science writer Ron Bailey pointed
out in a
recent article in the online adjunct to Reason Magazine, Martin
Teitel, a
philosopher who directs the Council for Responsible Genetics, was
quite
explicit about what the precautionary principle could do to stop
technological progress in the biotech field. When a student at a
recent
anti-technology conference observed that a biotech crop couldn't
be proven
safe without field trials that would themselves be forbidden by
the
precautionary principle, Teitel's reply was illuminating.
"That's just
fine," the philosopher replied, because "politically
it's difficult for me
to go around saying that I want to shut this science down, so
it's safer for
me to say something like 'it needs to be done safely before
releasing it.'"
To put is simply, the precautionary principle is a catch-22 that
delivers a
ban that one never has to ask for. The biotechnologists, Teitel
concludes,
"don't get to do it period."
It is inarguable that if one foregoes the development of new
drugs,
chemicals, genetically-enhanced organisms and so on, one reduces
the risk of
these things harming people. But it's equally inarguable that in
ceasing
such scientific research or technological development, one
foregoes the opportunity to save lives. Further one terminates
the discovery
process of science and technology. Even further, by keeping
products from
the market, one sabotages the economic voting process by which a
creative
society finds out what can best extend life and improves it's
quality.
Consider some of the inventions that would fail the precautionary
principle
test of developmental worthiness:
Fire, of course, is a loser from the get-go. Aspirin, with
its risks to the
stomach lining would almost certainly fail the test, as would
food
preservatives if used improperly. Cars are out, of course, but
then, so are
bicycles, and horseback riding. As for that computer you're
using, or the
television you watch, or the cell-phone you use when you call 911
at a
highway accident ... well, forget about it.
Surely if advocates of the precautionary principle believe in
what they're
proposing, they'll be willing to walk their talk. So, before
pushing the
precautionary principle into policy, it seems only prudent to ask
that
precautionary principle proponents prove that the precautionary
principle
itself poses no risk when implemented. If the precautionary
principle is so
easily implemented, advocates won't mind demonstrating that no
risk will
accrue from lost opportunities, reduced economic health, the
slowing of
medical and technological progress, and so on.
But wait. What's that, you say? One can't prove that the
precautionary
principle will do no harm? One can't prove a
negative? Imagine that.
Copyright 2001, TechCentralStation.com
=============
(9) GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
From Harvey Leifert <HLeifert@agu.org>
American Geophysical Union
Geophysical Research Letters
Highlights of This Issue - April 1, 2001
********************
Contents
I. Highlights
II. Authors and their institutions
III. Notes, including ordering information for science writers
**********
I. Highlights
1. Aerosols affect cloud opacity, but not liquid water
Nakajima et al. ["A possible correlation between
satellite-derived
cloud and aerosol microphysical parameters"] present a
simultaneous analysis of cloud and aerosol parameters from a
newly developed algorithm for AVHRR [Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometers] remote sensing. Comparing column
aerosol particle number and low-cloud microphysical parameters
for January, April, July and October, 1990. They show that (1)
aerosol abundance has an impact on cloud microphysics similar to
that predicted by models and (2) cloud liquid water does not vary
significantly with the amount of aerosol. The authors find a
positive correlation between cloud optical thickness and aerosol
number concentration, whereas effective particle radius and
aerosol number correlate negatively.
2. Fine-mode sulfate aerosols measured on commercial flights
Martinsson et al. ["Fine mode particulate sulfur in the
tropopause
region measured from intercontinental flights (CARIBIC)"]
present the first systematic study of the concentration of
particulate sulfur in the upper troposphere and lower
stratosphere
(CARIBIC program). [CARIBIC = Civil Aircraft for Regular
Investigation of the atmosphere Based on an Instrument
Container.] Presenting data on the fine-mode particulate sulfur
concentrations obtained from 21 intercontinental flights between
Germany (50 degrees north) and Male/Colombo in the Indian
Ocean (5 degrees north), the authors find an average sulfur
concentration of 14 nanograms per cubic meter STP [at standard
temperature and pressure]. Concentrations increase steadily with
northern latitude over these flight paths from 6.9 to 25
nanograms
per cubic meter, suggesting human influence.
3. Low rise seen in stratospheric water vapor
Rosenlof et al. ["Stratospheric water vapor increases over
the past
half-century"] combine ten stratospheric water vapor data
sets
covering the period 1954-2000 to show that increases in
stratospheric water vapor have persisted since the mid-1950s,
yielding a cumulative 2 parts per million by volume increase
globally or about 1% per year. They note that different
mechanisms are likely responsible for increases in separate
layers
of the stratosphere. They speculate that a change in the
atmospheric circulation that increases the amount of water
entering the stratosphere most likely accounts for this long-term
increase.
4. Lidar observations over the poles
Gardner et al. ["First lidar observations of middle
atmosphere
temperatures, Fe densities, and polar mesospheric clouds over the
north and south poles"] report some of the first
measurements of
temperature in the upper mesosphere/thermosphere at high
latitudes during summer for 1999-2000. To measure temperature
and Fe (iron) densities, the authors use a new Fe Boltzman lidar
that measures the relative populations of the spin multiplets in
the
lowest electronic state of iron. They detect a high level of
atomic
iron in a sporadic layer at the North Pole. The authors also
report
some of the first measurements of polar mesospheric clouds
(PMCs) over the South Pole. PMCs over the South Pole are found
to be consistently 2-3 kilometers [1-2 miles] higher than those
over
the North Pole.
[Note: See also AGU Press Release 01-8 of March 19, 2001.]
5. Upwelling iron limiting in California waters
Johnson et al. ["The annual cycle of iron and the biological
response in central California coastal waters"] present the
results
of iron measurements carried out over a 16-month period (March
1999 through June 2000) at three stations in and directly
off-shore
of Monterey Bay, the upwelling ecosystem of central California.
They correlate the results of the analyses with biological and
biogeochemical variables. In the two off-shore stations, the iron
time-series shows large pulses associated with the initiation of
the
spring upwelling event, which are interpreted as transport of
dissolvable particulate iron from the benthic boundary layer. The
observations show a decoupling of iron and nitrate in the coastal
environment. Based on this and phytoplankton physiological data,
the authors argue in support of the hypothesis of iron limitation
in
summer, particularly for larger diatoms.
6. Carbon budget of Great Barrier Reef
Suzuki et al. ["The oceanic CO2 system and carbon budget in
the
Great Barrier Reef, Australia"] analyze a unique set of
ocean
measurements of carbon-related parameters taken along a transect
from 26 degrees south to 14 degrees south along the Great Barrier
Reef, Australia, during a survey conducted 19-28 May 1996.
Using a simple model of inorganic carbon balance based on
assumptions of carbon conservation mechanisms in a coral reef
dominated system, the authors derive the carbon budget in the
near-shore region. During winter, carbon dioxide is released due
to
calcium carbonate production in the lagoon. Despite these losses,
total dissolved inorganic carbon (normalized at constant
salinity) is
found to be relatively uniform throughout the study area. The
authors propose that external carbon is being supplied to the
lagoon, most likely from river discharge.
7. A flat sink for extracting carbon dioxide
Elliott et al. ["Compensation of atmospheric CO2 buildup
through
engineered chemical sinkage"] address the question of
scrubbing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, arguing that it may be
possible to remove carbon dioxide at a rate comparable to the
present input rate from fossil fuel combustion. Air would be
moved over or through calcium oxide scrubbers by normal
atmospheric circulation. The authors find that mass transfer
coefficients and eddy diffusivities are sufficient for the
implementation of the scrubbing, and the thermodynamics of
removal and recovery are not prohibitive either. The authors'
simplest proof-of-concept case is for flat removal units of
calcium
oxide covering 200,000 square kilometers [77,220 square miles] to
remove 7 gigatons of carbon per year.
8. Liquid CO2 may have cut Martian gullies
Musselwhite et al. ["Liquid CO2 breakout and the formation
of
recent small gullies on Mars"] point out the apparent
similarity
between the depth below the Martian surface at which triple-point
pressure of carbon dioxide would be reached and the depth from
which small, recent gullies originate. These gullies appear
mostly
on steep, generally poleward-facing slopes and in high latitudes
in
the Martian southern hemisphere. The authors construct a scenario
in which crustal liquid carbon dioxide, not water, is the fluid
that
carved the Martian channels. The authors suggest that a liquid
carbon dioxide aquifer builds up behind a dry-ice barrier in pore
spaces a few meters [yards] into the rock from the cliff face.
Seepage locations are seen consistently around 100 meters
[330 feet] below the top of the cliff surfaces.
9. Hydrous pyrolite at transition zone pressures
Litasov et al. ["Melting relations of hydrous pyrolite in
CaO-MgO-
Al2O3-SiO2-H2O system at the transition zone pressures"]
present
experimental data in pyrolite-water system at high pressure and
temperature, providing basic information for evaluating the
hydrous melting hypothesis for komatiite generation. The authors
conduct a series of melting experiments with hydrous and dry
primitive mantle compositions at the lowermost upper mantle and
transition zone pressures and evaluate the possible role of water
in
the deep generation of komatiite primary magmas. They determine
phase relations and melt compositions in pyrolite in dry and wet
conditions with 2 percent by weight of water at 13-20 gigapascals
over a temperature range of 1600 to 2200 degrees celsius
[2,900-4,000 degrees Fahrenheit]. They find that compositions of
partial melts at 13-20 gigapascals are generally similar in dry
and
hydrous systems, but hydrous melts contain more silica at 13-17
gigapascals.
**********
II. Authors referenced in the Highlights (in order of
appearance):
Teruyuki Nakajima, Center for Climate System Research, The U.
of Tokyo, Japan; Akiko Higurashi, National Inst. for
Environmental Studies, Japan; Kazuaki Kawamoto, Virginia
Polytchnic Inst. and State U., Virginia; Joyce E. Penner, Dept.
of
Atmosphere, Oceanic and Space Studies, U. Michigan, Michigan.
Bengt G. Martinsson, Giorgos Papaspiropoulos, Division of
Nuclear Physics, Physics Dept., Lund U., Lund, Sweden; Jost
Heintzenberg, Markus Hermann, Inst. for Tropospheric Research,
Leipzig, Germany.
Karen H. Rosenlof, Kenneth K. Kelley, NOAA Aeronomy Lab.,
Boulder, Colorado; Samuel J. Oltmans, NOAA CMDL, Boulder,
Colorado; Dieter Kley, Forschungszentrum, Julich, Germany; M.
P. McCormick, James M. Russell III, Dept. of Physics, Hampton U.,
Hampton, Virginia; Er Woon. Chiou, William P. Chu, David J.
Johnson, Ellis E. Remsberg, NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, Virginia; Hope A. Michelsen, Sandia National Lab.,
Livermore, California; Gerald E. Nedoluha, Naval Research Lab.,
Washington, D.C.; Geoffrey C. Toon, JPL, Pasadena, California.
Chester S. Gardner, George C. Papen, Xinzhao Chu, Weiling Pan,
Dept. of Electrical Engin., U. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, Illinois.
Kenneth S. Johnson, Francisco P. Chavez, Virginia A. Elrod, Steve
E. Fitzwater, Timothy Pennington, Kurt R. Buck, Peter M. Walz,
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Inst., Moss Landing, California.
Atsushi Suzuki, Hodaka Kawahata, Geological Survey of Japan,
Tsukuba, Japan; Tenshi Ayukai, Australian Inst. of Marine
Science, Townsville, Australia; Koichi Goto, Kansai
Environmental Engin. Center Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan.
Scott Elliott, K. S. Lackner, H. J. Ziock, M. K. Dubey, H. P.
Hanson, Sumner Barr, Los Alamos National Lab., Los Alamos,
New Mexico; N. A. Ciszkowski, D. R. Blake, Chemistry Dept., U.
California, Irvine, California.
Donald S. Musselwhite, Timothy D. Swindle, Jonathan I. Lunine,
Lunar and Planetary Lab., U. Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Konstantin Litasov, Hiromitsu Taniguchi, Center for Northeast
Asian Studies, Tohoku U., Sendai, Japan; Eiji Ohtani, Inst. of
Mineralogy, Petrology and Economic Geology, Tohoku U., Japan.
**********
III. Notes, including ordering information
Authors are listed above, with institutional affiliations, in the
order in which their papers appear in these Highlights. This
information is not repeated in this form in GRL itself.
The Highlights and the papers to which they refer are not under
AGU embargo.
Journalists and public information officers of educational and
scientific institutions (only) may receive one or more of the
papers
cited in the Highlights; send a message to Dawn McGee at
<dtate@agu.org>
(correct!), indicating which one(s). Include your
name, the name of your publication, and your fax number. State
whether you prefer to receive the paper(s) as PDF attachments by
email or as a fax.
If you did not receive this message directly from AGU, i.e., if
you
are not on the AGU distribution list, please provide your title,
name of publication, postal address, and phone number as well.
Harvey Leifert
Public Information Manager
American Geophysical Union
2000 Florida Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
U.S.A.
Phone (direct): +1 (202) 777-7507
Phone (toll-free in North America): (800) 966-2481 x507
Fax: +1 (202) 328-0566
Email: hleifert@agu.org
===========
(10) TEMPERATURE: THE HEALTH EFFECTS
From CO2 Science Magazine, 21 March 2001
http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/healtheffectstemp.htm
Climate alarmists claim that global warming would be harmful to
humans
because it would (1) increase the number of deaths directly
related to high
temperatures and (2) increase the number of deaths indirectly
related to
high temperatures by increasing the spread of vector-borne
diseases into
regions that are claimed (often falsely) to currently be too cool
for their
occurrence. These predictions comprise one of the major scare
stories of the
global warming debate; and nary a heat wave passes but what
climate
alarmists are quick to blame global warming for any deaths that
might have
been associated with it. Analyses of the recent scientific
literature,
however, suggest that these claims too, like nearly all of their
other
claims, are one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase with
reality.
For starters, cold is much more deadly than heat almost
everywhere one
looks. A study of U.S. death rates between 1979 and 1997, for
example,
indicates that deaths due to extreme cold exceeded deaths due to
extreme
heat by 80 to 125% (Goklany and Straja, 2000). An even greater
difference
between heat-related and cold-related mortality was reported for
seven
European regions studied by Keatinge et al. (2000). In the 65 to
74 age
range of the population, the authors reported that annual
cold-related
deaths were nearly ten times greater than annual heat-related
deaths.
In Novosibirsk, Siberia, where the temperature remains below
minus 2 degrees
Celsius for over 40% of the year, a little global warming would
clearly be
providential. According to Feigin et al. (2000), a statistically
significant
relationship was reported there between stroke occurrence and low
ambient
temperature. In terms of ischemic stroke (IS), which accounted
for 87% of
all stroke types, "the risk of IS occurrence on days with
low ambient
temperature is 32% higher than that on days with high ambient
temperature."
Low air temperatures have also been shown to be a contributing
factor to
Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD) and Acute Myocardial Infraction (AMI).
Behar
(2000), for example, reports that "most of the recent papers
on this topic
have concluded that a peak of SCD, AMI and other cardiovascular
conditions
is usually observed in low temperature weather during
winter." As one
example, Behar cites an Israeli study (Green et al., 1994) that
revealed
that between 1976 and 1985 "mortality from cardiovascular
disease was higher
by 50% in mid-winter than in mid-summer, both in men and women
and in
different age groups." And this occurred in spite of the
fact that summer
temperatures in the Negev, where much of the work was done, often
exceed
30°C, while winter temperatures there typically do not drop
below 10°C.
Even in the relatively mild climate of southern California, there
is a
seasonal variation in cardiac-related mortality. Kloner et al.
(1999)
searched all 222,265 death certificates from Los Angeles County
for deaths
caused by coronary artery disease from 1985 through 1996, finding
that death
rates in December and January were 33% higher than in June
through
September. Given these results, and those cited above, it would
appear that
global warming, if it ever occurs, is likely to be beneficial to
much of
humanity by reducing the incidence of stroke, cardiovascular
disease and
other death-dealing maladies related to cold and wintry weather,
which
affect much greater numbers of people than the problems that are
typically
associated with summer heat waves.
The climate alarmists are also wrong when they claim that global
warming
will increase mortality rates due to the spreading of
vector-borne diseases
into regions they claim are presently too cool for their
occurrence. And why
are they wrong? Because until very recently, nearly all of the
doom-and-gloom reports of global warming effects on malaria
typically used
only one, or at most two, climate variables to make predictions
of the
future geographical distribution of this disease. The study of
Rogers and
Randolph (2000), however, employed five such variables to
determine the
specific climatic constraints that best define the present-day
distribution
of malaria, after which the multivariate relationship they
derived from this
exercise was applied to future climate scenarios derived from
state-of-the-art general circulation models of the atmosphere.
And what did they find? In the words of Dye and Reiter (2000),
the new
approach produces a "substantially better" fit to
current malaria incidence
data than any previous model. And what does their approach
to the problem
predict about the future? Very little change: a 0.84%
increase in exposure
potential under the "medium-high" scenario of global
warming produced by the
HadCM2 model of the UK's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
Research
and a 0.92% decrease under the HadCM2 "high" scenario.
In commenting on this result, Rogers and Randolph explicitly
state that
their quantitative model "contradicts prevailing forecasts
of global malaria
expansion" and that "it highlights the use [we would
say superiority] of
multivariate rather than univariate constraints in such
applications and the
advantage of statistical rather than biological approaches in
situations
where biological knowledge is incomplete."
Clearly, this important new study totally demolishes previous
claims that
any future global warming will allow malaria to spread into
currently
malaria-free regions of the world. Yet in spite of this good
news, there is
an even more powerful reason to reject the old horror stories of
diseases
running rampant as a result of possible global warming; and that
is human
intervention. In the words of Dye and Reiter, "given
adequate funding,
technology, and, above all, commitment, the campaign to 'Roll
Back Malaria,'
spearheaded by the World Health Organization, will have halved
deaths
related to [malaria] by 2010," so that "by 2050, the
map of malaria
distribution should bear little resemblance to the one drawn by
Rogers and
Randolph." In fact, if all goes well, there may not even be
such a map!
References
Behar, S. 2000. Out-of-hospital death in Israel - Should we blame
the
weather? Israel Medical Association Journal 2: 56-57.
Dye, C. and Reiter, P. 2000. Temperatures without fevers?
Science 289:
1697-1698.
Feigin, V.L., Nikitin, Yu.P., Bots, M.L., Vinogradova, T.E. and
Grobbee,
D.E. 2000. A population-based study of the
associations of stroke
occurrence with weather parameters in Siberia, Russia
(1982-92). European
Journal of Neurology 7: 171-178.
Goklany, I.M. and Straja, S.R. 2000. U.S. trends in crude death
rates due to
extreme heat and cold ascribed to weather, 1979-97. Technology
7S: 165-173.
Green, M.S., Harari, G., Kristal-Boneh, E. 1994. Excess winter
mortality
from ischaemic heart disease and stroke during colder and warmer
years in
Israel. European Journal of Public Health 4: 3-11.
Keatinge, W.R., Donaldson, G.C., Cordioli, E., Martinelli, M.,
Kunst, A.E.,
Mackenbach, J.P., Nayha, S. and Vuori, I. 2000. Heat
related mortality in
warm and cold regions of Europe: Observational study. British
Medical
Journal 321: 670-673.
Kloner, R.A., Poole, W.K. and Perritt, R.L. 1999. When
throughout the year
is coronary death most likely to occur? A 12-year
population-based analysis
of more than 220,000 cases. Circulation 100: 1630-1634.
Reiter, P. 2000. From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in
England in the
Little Ice Age. Emerging Infectious Diseases 6: 1-11.
Rogers, D.J. and Randolph, S.E. 2000. The global spread of
malaria in a
future, warmer world. Science 289: 1763-1766.
Copyright © 2001. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
===========
(11) VARIABILITY OF CLIMATE IN EARLY MODERN TIMES
Xoplaki E, Maheras P, Luterbacher J: Variability of climate in
Meridional
Balkans during the periods 1675-1715 and 1780-1830 and its impact
on human
life
CLIMATIC CHANGE 48: (4) 581-615 MAR 2001
The periods from 1675-1715 (Late Maunder Minimum; LMM) and
1780-1830 (Early
Instrumental Period; EIP) delineate important parts of the
so-called `Little
Ice Age' (LIA), in which Europe experienced predominant cooling.
Documentary
data, assembled from a number of sources, in the course of the EU
funded
research project ADVICE (Annual to Decadal Variability of Climate
in
Europe), has been used to locate and describe events in the
southern Balkans
and eastern Mediterranean. The resulting data has been used
firstly to
investigate the incidence of phenomena such as crops sterility,
famine and
epidemics and their relationships with climate, and secondly to
analyse the
extent of variability, particularly the occurrence of extreme
events, such
as severe winters (cold, wet or snowy), long periods of drought
and wet
periods. During the LMM and EIP, more such extreme situations
were apparent
compared with the last 50 years of the twentieth century. From
the scattered
data found for 1675-1715 and 1780-1830, the winter and spring
climate in
southern Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean, especially during
the LMM,
can be characterised as cooler and relatively rainier with a
higher
variability compared with the recent decades.
Addresses:
Xoplaki E, Univ Bern, Inst Geog, Hallerstr 12, CH-3012 Bern,
Switzerland.
Univ Bern, Inst Geog, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Univ Thessaloniki, Dept Meteorol & Climatol, GR-54006
Salonika, Greece.
Copyright © 2001 Institute for Scientific Information
============
* COMMENTS *
============
(12) CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICISM IS A NOBLE CALLING
by David Wojick (dwojick@shentel.net)
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/wojick.htm
March 2, 2001
The role of climate change skepticism in society is not well
understood. In
particular, skeptics are often criticized for not publishing
their views in
peer reviewed scientific journals. Some do, of course, but they
are the
exception.
Skeptics are also criticized for being in the pay of fossil fuel
and related
interests, many aren't but I am. I believe there is a simple, yet
profound
explanation for both of these facts, such that the criticism is
unwarranted.
The role of skepticism begins with the following basic principle,
let us
call it the principle of assessment.
1. Principle of Assessment --
When a body of science comes to have public policy implications
it must
undergo a higher level of scrutiny.
"Higher" here means more rigorous that is the norm in
the scientific
community. The rationality of this principle is obvious. In pure
science a
big mistake is seldom harmful, but in public policy it can be
disastrous.
Pure science encourages speculation, and following promising but
untried
lines of exploration. Public policy, because it mobilizes vast
forces,
necessarily operates under a far stricter standard of certitude.
The role of the skeptic is to implement the principle of
assessment. One
does this by testing the claims, probing the foundations,
cataloging the
uncertainties, seeking out disagreement, etc. In short the
skeptic is an
investigator, not of climate but of climate science. Needless to
say, this
scrutiny annoys the scientists no end, which leads to a second
big point --
2. The scrutiny is not part of the science.
This is the fact that confuses most people, because science does
include a
degree of internal scrutiny, including peer review. But
skepticism is a
different business, because it is implementing a much higher
standard of
scrutiny -- the public policy standard.
(Off topic example: People working in one problem solving
community are
often unaware of the very different standards in a neighboring
community.
When these communities intersect there can be significant
fiction. I was
once retained to sort out the animosity between the engineers who
operated a
naval base and the engineers who assembled ICBMs on that base.
The problem
turned out to be a huge difference in quality control standards
-- jeeps
versus missiles -- plus the fact that the base engineers
maintained the
cranes that handled the rockets, so were part of the assembly
process.)
It is for this reason that the skeptic's findings do not belong
in peer
reviewed climate science journals, and do not appear there. The
skeptic is
not doing climate science. Research yes, but research into the
climate
science per se, the logic of the science if you like, not
research into the
climate. In fact what I write here is a research paper, but it is
research
into the nature of climate change skepticism. As such it is not
suitable for
the Journal of Geophysical Research. Neither is most skeptical
research.
In logic, this distinction between studying climate and studying,
or
assessing, climate science is called an object level, meta level
distinction. A simple example is the difference between the
object level
statement that "the earth is warming" (climate science)
and the meta level
statement that "some scientists do not believe that the
earth is warming"
(assessment of climate science). Assessment is not a science, or
if it is,
it is not a physical science. Skeptics are doing assessment.
Moreover, the skeptics' principal audience is not the scientific
community,
it is the public policy community. The policy community wants to
know if the
science meets its standard of certitude. This fact gets confused
because
some of the most prominent scientists defend the science, while
others are
skeptics. In addition, many of the statements that the skeptics
are
questioning are made in the peer reviewed scientific literature,
which often
mixes object and meta level statements indiscriminately.
Likewise, in the
press, adding meta level interpretation of science, often by
scientists,
creates "spin".
Finally, regarding sponsorship, the following is a principle of
American
public policy practice. It may well be a fundamental principle of
democracy
--
3. The people likely to be hurt by a proposed policy pay for the
scrutiny.
It is by this principle that self-interest brings about carefully
reasoned
public action, along the lines of free market economics. The
principle is
most apparent in civil litigation, where the defendant is
expected to pay
for the defense. But the public policy area is equally
adversarial, despite
misplaced rhetoric about "objectivity", whatever that
might mean.
Climate change skeptics are expert witnesses for the defense in
an
adversarial policy process. Their job is to scrutinize the
science for
weakness, not to do the science or rectify the weakness. The
process is the
best we know of, its name being democracy, it's product being
reason. And
within it the skeptic's calling is a noble one.
Dr. David E. Wojick
President
Climatechangedebate.org
============
(13) COLD SPELLS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING?
From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
Dear Benny,
The item by the Doctors Idso ("THE PLANET IS WARMING
UP"!) seems to use
reports of record cold spells as 'evidence' that global warming
in not
occurring. This is a red herring! A NASA study reported by Eureka
Alerrt
last year showed how the US can be expected to have colder
winters
BECAUSE the oceans are warming up. See
http://www.eurekalert.org:80/releases/ngsc-teu011201.html
It is quite possible that the cold snaps, and unusual levels of
flooding,
are outcomes of global warming although statistical
"proof" of any such
effects and trends would be swamped by natural variations at this
stage.
regards
Michael Paine
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational
use only. The attached information may not be copied or
reproduced for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders.
The fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on,
can be
found at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily
reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of
this
network.