PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 62/2001 - 2 May 2001
---------------------------
"A theory about asteroids is gaining more and more
credibility among
astronomers, who allow that life on Earth might have been brought
here from
another planet. During a recent conference at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's Johnson Space Flight
Center in
Houston, Texas, astronomers revealed that asteroids, previously
thought to
be only remnants of unformed planets, may actually be ejected
from
other planets, spreading life as they travel. [...] Jay Melosh,
professor of planetary science at the University of Arizona in
Tucson,
said: "Over the course of solar system history, perhaps a
dozen or so
rocks ejected from the surface of one of the terrestrial planets
may fall
onto the surface of a terrestrial planet in another solar
system."
--Environmental News Network, 27 April 2001
"Withers reports that had there been a significant moon
there would
have been a week-long meteor storm comparable to the peak of the
1966
Leonids "Everyone around the world would have had the
opportunity to
see the best fireworks show in history" "Yet no
vigilant 12th century sky
watcher reported such a storm." Well now, that may not
strictly be the case.
The first question to ask is what level of record would be
acceptable. We
are talking about the 12th century after all and record keeping
wasn't
quite up to modern standards. Would Withers accept a record of
something
falling from the sky in the month of June 1178 as just possibly
being in
support of a lunar impact? I ask because there is just such a
record and
it is in Britton's 1937 listing."
--Mike Baillie, Queen's University, Belfast, 1 May 2001
"If the event reported by Gervase of Canterbury wasn't the
impact
that generated the Moon's extra libration, it would have to have
happened at some other time, and there should have been falls of
secondaries on Earth then too. I'm not aware of a better
candidate event
than the 1178 one - does anyone out there have candidate ones?
Nor, of
course, does Withers explain why the monks said it happened
twelve times
or more in rapid succession, and why they described what sounds
like a
dust veil spreading round the Moon - buoyed up by a temporary
atmosphere?"
--Duncan Lunan, 2 May 2001
(1) DO ASTEROID CONTAIN SEEDS OF LIFE?
Environmental News Network, 27 April 2001
(2) POSSIBLE KEY STEP IN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IDENTIFIED
UniSci, 1 May 2001
(3) LPSC 2001: A MARTIAN ODYSSEY
SpaceDaily, 1 May 2001
(4) MARS: A WORLD OF VARIED CATASTROPHES
SpaceDaily, 1 May 2001
(5) EARTHQUAKE ALERT! HOW NEW TECHNOLOGY MAY SAVE LIFES IN
SECONDS
ABC News, 27 April 2001
(6) CERES 2001 WORKSHOP
C. Blanco <CBLANCO@alpha4.ct.astro.it>
(7) WHAT MEDIEVAL WITNESSES SAW WAS PERHAPS A BIG LUNAR IMPACT
AFTER ALL
Duncan A. Lunan <astra@dlunan.freeserve.co.uk>
(8) DON'T UNDERESTIMATE ANCIENT RECORDERS
Mike Baillie <m.baillie@qub.ac.uk>
(9) SOME COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT NASA AND NEOs
E.P. Grondine <epgrondine@hotmail.com>
(10) A CURRENT NASA VIEW ON THE NEO HAZARD
E.P. Grondine epgrondine@hotmail.com
(11) ERRATA AND ADDENDA: MORE ON P/Tr CONTROVERSY
Hermann Burchard <burchar@mail.math.okstate.edu>
(12) REINVENTING PLATE TECTONICS
Jon Richfield <richfield@telkomsa.net>
(13) BEEP, BEEP! HERE COMES THE FEATHERED DROMAEOSAUR
Worth Crouch <mailto:doagain@jps.net>
===============
(1) DO ASTEROID CONTAIN SEEDS OF LIFE?
From Environmental News Network, 27 April 2001
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/04/04272001/asteroids_43245.asp
A theory about asteroids is gaining more and more credibility
among
astronomers, who allow that life on Earth might have been brought
here from
another planet.
During a recent conference at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Johnson Space Flight Center in Houston, Texas,
astronomers
revealed that asteroids, previously thought to be only remnants
of unformed
planets, may actually be ejected from other planets, spreading
life as they
travel.
Last year, the theory was offered by a team of scientists from
Caltech,
Vanderbildt and McGill universities that a meteorite believed to
have come
from Mars could contain fossilized remains of Martian bacteria.
Some astronomers are suggesting that a meteorite such as this -
one that
took 16 million years to get to Earth - could have contained
microbes from
which all life on Earth evolved.
Jay Melosh, professor of planetary science at the University of
Arizona in
Tucson, said: "Over the course of solar system history,
perhaps a dozen or
so rocks ejected from the surface of one of the terrestrial
planets may fall
onto the surface of a terrestrial planet in another solar
system."
Melosh added that Earth "should have received a few such
interstellar
wanderers over the course of solar system history."
The planetary scientist said he has no concrete evidence that
life
hitchhiked to Earth on an asteroid, but the scenario is possible.
"There's
no proof that this happened, but my research suggests that it's
plausible,"
Melosh said. "Life could have been exchanged from Earth to
Mars and Mars to
Earth if conditions on Mars were ever hospitable. If Mars was
once warmer
and wetter, then there's a chance there has been that kind of
exchange."
Millions of years ago, the Earth was bombarded by large
meteorites whose
impact likely blasted chunks of the planet out into space. Some
of that
material could have made it to Mars and to other places in the
solar system.
Scientists say Earth was bombarbed by large meteorites millions
of years
ago.
Last fall, a group of scientists claimed that they had collected
an alien
bacterium 10 miles above the surface of Earth. A report in the
Nov. 14, 2000
special edition of Earth, Moon and Planets, a journal published
in the
Netherlands, lends credibility to the theory.
"Findings to date indicate that the chemical precursors to
life, found in
comet dust, may well have survived a plunge into early Earth's
atmosphere,"
said astronomer Peter Jenniskens of the Ames Research Center and
the Search
for Extraterrestrial Life Institute.
The idea that the seeds of life fell from space has been a theory
of
astronomers Fred Hoyle and Indian astronomer Chandra
Wickramasinghe since
the 1970s. They called these seeds from space
"panspermia."
In an interview in November with Space.com, a space information
news
service, Wickramasinghe said, "I think the results reported
by NASA are
clear proof that bacterial particles could survive, hence
vindicating
panspermia."
At the NASA conference, researchers noted that the earliest
records of life
coincide with the period when impacts to the Earth from space
debris first
began to subside some 3.5 billion years ago, before bombardment
began again.
Paul Renne, a geologist at the University of California at
Berkeley, said:
"Maybe, as others have speculated before, life began on
Earth many times,
but the comets only stopped wiping it out about three or four
billion years
ago."
Copyright 2001, Environmental News Network
All Rights Reserved
==========
(2) POSSIBLE KEY STEP IN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IDENTIFIED
From UniSci, 1 May 2001
http://unisci.com/stories/20012/0501011.htm
For a transition to occur from the pre-biological world of 4
billion years
ago to the world we know today, amino acids--the building blocks
of proteins
in all living systems--had to link into chainlike molecules.
Now Robert Hazen and Timothy Filley of the Geophysical Laboratory
of the
Carnegie Institution of Washington, and Glenn Goodfriend of
George
Washington University have discovered what may be a key step in
this process
-- a step that has baffled researchers for more than a half a
century.
Their work, supported by NASA's Astrobiology Institute and the
Carnegie
Institution, is reported in today's issue of the Proceedings of
the National
Academy of Sciences.
The molecular structure of all but one amino acid is an
asymmetrical
arrangement grouped around carbon. This arrangement means that
there are two
mirror-image forms of each amino acid; these forms are designated
left-handed (L) and right-handed (D).
All of the chemistry of living systems is distinguished by its
selective use
of these (L) and (D), or chiral, molecules. Non-biological
processes, on the
other hand, do not usually distinguish between L and D variants.
For a transition to occur between the chemical and biological
eras, some
natural process had to separate and concentrate the left- and
right-handed
amino acids. This step, called chiral selection, is crucial to
forming
chainlike molecules of pure L amino acids.
Hazen and his collaborators performed a simple experiment. They
immersed a
fist-sized crystal of the common mineral calcite, which forms
limestone and
the hard parts of many sea animals, in a dilute solution of the
amino acid
aspartic acid and found that the left-and right-handed molecules
adsorbed
preferentially onto different faces of the calcite crystal.
Most minerals are centric, that is, their structures are not
handed.
However, some minerals display pairs of crystal surfaces that
have a mirror
relationship to each other. Calcite is one such mineral. It is
common today,
and was prevalent during the Archaean Era some 4 billion years
ago when life
first emerged.
This study suggests a plausible process by which the mixed D- and
L-amino
acids in the very dilute "primordial soup" could be
both concentrated and
selected on a readily-available mineral surface.
Hazen remarks, "Since the pioneering work of Stanley Miller
in the 1950s,
prebiotic synthesis of amino acids has been shown to be
relatively easy. The
real challenges now lie in selecting and concentrating L-amino
acids, and
then linking those molecules into chainlike proteins.
"Our experiments demonstrate that crystal faces of calcite
easily select and
concentrate the amino acids. Experiments now underway will see if
the
calcite also promotes the formation of amino acid chains."
The Carnegie Institution of Washington has been a pioneering
force in basic
scientific research since 1902. It is a private, nonprofit
organization with
five research departments in the U.S.: Terrestrial Magnetism,
Plant Biology,
Observatories, Embryology, and the Geophysical Laboratory.
Carnegie is a member of and receives research funding for this
study and
other efforts through the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI), a
research
consortium involving academic, non-profit and NASA centers. The
NAI, whose
central administrative office is located at NASA's Ames Research
Center in
Mountain View, CA, is led by Dr. Baruch Blumberg (Nobel '76). The
institute
also has international affiliate and associate members.
Astrobiology is the
study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life
in the
universe.
Related website:
The Carnegie Institution of Washington
[Contact: Robert Hazen, Tina McDowell]
01-May-2001
Copyright © 1995-2001 UniSci. All rights reserved.
==========
(3) LPSC 2001: A MARTIAN ODYSSEY
from SpaceDaily, 1 May 2001
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunarplanet-2001-01a1.html
by Bruce Moomaw
Cameron Park - May 1, 2001
The 32nd Annual Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference -- held
in Houston
from March 12 through 16 -- like all the LPSCs before it, was a
major
scientific powwow at which scientists from the world over
presented hundreds
of papers and posters on the geology, meteorology and chemistry
of the other
worlds and objects in our Solar System, from giant planets down
to
meteorites.
As always, many of the papers (especially those dealing with the
detailed
geochemical analysis of meteorites and returned Moon samples)
were so
specialized and dry in their subject matter that they hold appeal
only for
fellow scientific specialists, and/or masochists -- but as
always, many were
of great interest to anyone with a reasonable degree of interest
in the
exploration of other worlds.
As to be expected a major theme of this year's LPSC was the
ongoing debate
as to just how much liquid water Mars had on or near its surface
during its
earliest days, and how much it has now.
The relevance of this to the question of whether ancient Mars had
microbial
life -- and even whether Mars may still have some, buried deep
beneath its
savagely hostile present-day surface -- is obvious.
And the debate is still as furious as ever.
Back in 1996, when the MGS spacecraft first entered orbit around
Mars and
began the first really detailed close-up scientific survey of the
planet
since the Viking missions, the single most popular model of the
planet's
history -- what might be called the "Modern Classic"
view -- ran as follows.
During the first billion or so years after its creation -- the
so-called
"Noachian" period -- Mars had a carbon dioxide
atmosphere that was belched
from out of its early volcanoes, to provide a far denser
atmosphere than its
faint wisp today.
Indeed, its surface air pressure may have been as much as
present-day
Earth's, or perhaps even several times greater.
One major piece of evidence for this is the fact that craters
dating back to
that epoch are much more eroded than all the craters existing on
areas of
Martian land which (judging by their sparser total crater count)
were
volcanically resurfaced after the Noachian era -- indeed, these
oldest
craters are so much more eroded as to indicate that only wind
erosion in a
genuinely dense atmosphere could have done it.
And one consequence of that dense CO2 atmosphere would have been
a powerful
greenhouse effect -- strong enough to warm much of Mars' surface
above the
freezing point of water.
The best evidence for this is the scattering of ancient
"valley networks"
across the planet -- which look very much like branching dry
riverbeds, and
were almost surely formed by the flow of a moderate amount of
some fluid
across the surface over long periods of time.
Some researchers, however, think they see subtler signs that
Noachian Mars
had a lot of liquid water on its surface -- everything from
grooves in some
of Mars' southern highlands that may have been gouged by glaciers
created by
accumulated snowfall on its mountains, to features around the
edge of the
great lowland depression taking up most of Mars' northern
hemisphere which
just might be the shorelines of an ancient ocean that once filled
that
lowland (which is also floored with plains of material so
extremely flat
that they may be seafloor sediment).
And this is just the sort of environment in which microbial life
might very
well have evolved on ancient Mars at about the same time it was
first
evolving on Earth.
However, Mars -- unlike Earth -- then gradually lost that early
dense
atmosphere.
Some of it -- because Mars' gravity is so much weaker than
Earth's -- may
have been splashed into space by the huge asteroid impacts which
were still
common in those early days of the Solar System.
The current understanding of the interior of Mars suggests that
it can be
modeled with a thin crust, similar to Earth's, a mantle and a
core. Using
four parameters, the Martian core size and mass can be
determined. However,
only three out of the four are known and include the total mass,
size of
Mars, and the moment of inertia. Mass and size was determined
accurately
from early missions. The moment of inertia was determined from
Viking lander
and Pathfinder Doppler data, by measuring the precession rate of
Mars. The
fourth parameter, needed to complete the interior model, will be
obtained
from future spacecraft missions. With the three known parameters,
the model
is significantly constrained. If the Martian core is dense
(composed of
iron) similar to Earth's or SNC meteorites thought to originate
from Mars,
then the minimum core radius would be about 1300 kilometers. If
the core is
made out of less-dense material such as a mixture of sulfur and
iron, the
maximum radius would probably be less than 2000 kilometers.
Some of the rest may have been lost when Mars' initial core of
liquid iron
cooled down and solidified around 4 billion years ago, shutting
off the
planet's magnetic field and thus allowing the "solar
wind" of charged
particles racing past the planet to gradually skim away gases
from Mars'
thin upper atmosphere.
But the favored view, at least until MGS arrived, was that most
of Mars'
early CO2 gradually dissolved into its surface liquid water and
then reacted
with Mars' silicate crustal rocks to form solid carbonate
minerals.
On Earth, the process of "crustal tectonics" (or, as
it's often called,
"continental drift") eventually -- after periods of up
to 100 million years
-- drags these surface carbonates down into Earth's hot interior,
where
they're broken down by the heat and their CO2 is then belched
back up to the
surface by Earth's volcanoes to begin the cycle all over again.
But Mars, because it's smaller than Earth and so has more area
relative to
its interior volume, could never store up nearly as much trapped
subsurface
heat from the traces of radioisotopes in its rocks.
And since it's that excess internal heat that drives crustal
tectonics, Mars
had none -- and so, after most of its CO2 air had been turned
into surface
layers of carbonate minerals, it remained in that form
permanently.
Its air was gone for good.
And without the greenhouse warming from that dense blanket of
CO2, all the
planet's surface water froze solid, forming a layer of permafrost
(the
so-called "cryosphere") several kilometers thick.
This process was, of course, gradual.
Indeed, up to a billion years ago, Mars had occasional
titanic
"catastrophic outflows" of subsurface liquid water,
caused because the
remaining liquid water in the rock pores of its warmer interior
achieved
immense pressure in some lowland areas where there was a linked
but
higher-altitude liquid water table in nearby highlands.
When a volcanic spasm or an occasional giant meteor impact
cracked the thick
surface shell of permafrost, this water would gush out in immense
floods for
hundreds of kilometers, dwarfing any floods on Earth -- but
lasting only a
few days before the subsurface water reservoir ran out, and the
surface
water froze solid, leaving only the channels formed by the
immense brief
flood.
Eventually, though -- as both Mars' interior volcanism and its
surface
continued to cool -- the cryosphere grew to such a thickness that
such
ruptures ceased to occur.
Indeed, by about 3 billion years ago Mars had lost virtually all
of its air
-- since, even after all of Mars' surface liquid water froze,
some of its
air was still being blasted into space by meteor impacts,
stripped away by
the solar wind or turned into subsurface carbonate deposits by
the planet's
few remaining volcanic hot springs.
And so Mars' frozen, virtually airless surface became hopelessly
inhospitable to life -- but if life ever did evolve on Mars,
there may still
be beds of microscopic fossils and ancient organic material (much
better
preserved than Earth's oldest fossils, thanks to Mars' lack of
crustal
tectonics and water erosion).
And there may even be Martian microbes surviving today in the
remaining
liquid "water table" kilometers below its surface, and
perhaps a lot closer
to the surface around any of the planet's remaining geothermally
heated
areas for its volcanism has not completely died away even today.
Copyright 2001, SpaceDaily
=========
(4) MARS: A WORLD OF VARIED CATASTROPHES
From SpaceDaily, 1 May 2001
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunarplanet-2001-01a2.html
by Bruce Moomaw
Cameron Park - May 1, 2001
At variance to the standard model of an older wet Mars, is a
model as
favored by Dr. Victor Baker -- who finds evidence for occasional
brief warm
episodes triggered by near-surface volcanism.
The warmth of this volcanism was able, says Baker, to break down
the
carbonates where upon additional CO2 stored in the planet's cold
subsurface
soil and rocks was released, which when combined with thawed
subsurface
water ice was enough to restore Mars to its hospitable glory days
for a few
tens of thousands of years.
A romantic picture - yes - but there are some critical problems
with it.
Firstly Mars, even in its earliest days, was damned cold,
especially since
the Sun was only about 70% as bright 4 billion years ago as it is
now.
Even given the greenhouse effect from a dense CO2 atmosphere,
it's rather
hard to visualize ancient Mars' surface being above freezing --
save,
perhaps, in local volcanically heated areas, which may explain
why its
valley networks are quite rare compared to Earth's ancient
riverbeds and
seem to be concentrated in some areas.
When viewed in detail, they also look somewhat different from
dried-up
riverbeds on Earth -- for instance, they seem to have far fewer
small upper
tributaries draining into them.
And for this reason, many geologists think they were carved not
by surface
flows of water but by much slower trickles of water a short
distance
underground, which gradually eroded a bigger and bigger
underground tunnel
until the roof finally fell in.
This process, called "sapping", requires a lot less
water, and it would also
be produced more easily by underground geothermal heat than
surface flows of
water would be.
There's also the puzzle of those huge catastrophic outflow
channels -- were
there ever really local reservoirs of high-pressure subsurface
water on Mars
gigantic enough to carve them? And, last but hardly least,
there's an
additional puzzle suspected for most of the Nineties, and
dramatically
confirmed by MGS when it began mapping Mars' surface minerals:
the
"Carbonate Paradox".
Those huge surface layers of carbonate minerals which should be
there today
if Mars' early dense CO2 atmosphere had been destroyed that way
simply
aren't there -- judging by the results from MGS, the planet
doesn't seem to
have any major carbonate deposits anywhere on its surface at all!
There are several possible explanations for this mystery.
Maybe some process on Mars' surface today (there have been
several proposals
about this) breaks carbonates back down into CO2, so that they
remain in
stable deposits only a few dozen meters and more below the
surface, where
they were formed by the last near-surface volcanic hot springs.
The dozen Mars meteorites we have on Earth today, blasted out of
the
planet's crust by giant meteor impacts, do contain small amounts
of
carbonates. Or maybe Mars actually did lose most of its air to
outer space
instead, thanks to giant impacts and the solar wind -- although
there's some
doubt as to whether those processes by themselves could have been
efficient
enough.
A couple of scientists have even suggested that the
"TES" thermal-IR
spectrometer that MGS uses to map Mars' minerals is much less
sensitive to
carbonates than had been thought.
But it is still one of the biggest puzzles about Mars.
As you might expect, these puzzles were subjects of furious
debate at the
LPSC -- especially since, thanks to the dismal luck of the Mars
probes
launched since 1998, most of the recent information we've
acquired on Mars
comes from only one spacecraft: Mars Global Surveyor.
Despite Mars Pathfinder's success and its tremendous PR value, it
didn't
really tell us all that much new about Mars -- which was to be
expected,
since Pathfinder was designed from the start as an engineering
test mission.
At LPSC 2001 there were many papers focusing on the exact nature
of the
evidence for liquid water found in the Viking orbiters' general
maps of
Mars' surface, the tremendously more detailed close up views of
small
samples of the surface from MGS' high-powered telephoto camera,
and the data
on Mars' mineralogy from its TES and on the exact altitude of
Mars' surface
features from its laser altimeter.
Many of them described what looks like additional confirming
evidence of
ancient liquid-water features on the surface.
J.M. Dohm described evidence that an "enormous drainage
basin" existed
during the early Noachian period, which was filled with layers of
water-borne sediments that were later cut through by the growing
Marineris
Valley -- the gigantic system of canyons which is apparently a
giant
"stretch mark" produced in Mars' crust by the gradual
upheaval of the huge
volcanic "Tharsis Bulge" on one side of the planet.
MGS has photographed dramatic rock layering all the way up the
kilometers-long side of the Valley's canyons, but the majority
feeling was
that most of the biggest layers were solidified lava flows rather
than
sedimentary layers,..
Perhaps not.
J.A. Grant examined the valley networks in the Margaritifer Sinus
region,
the area on Mars where they are most concentrated, and concluded
that they
were indeed carved by "sapping" (tunneling by
underground water flows)
rather than surface runoff -- but also that the only way such a
subsurface
water supply could be adequately replenished was if
"widespread
precipitation" in the form of rain or snow occurred in the
region and then
seeped into Mars' porous ground.
B.M Hynek concluded from MGS' laser topography maps that the
western Arabia
Terra ("Arabia Highlands"), an area the size of Europe,
was so eroded by
surface rain that 3 million cubic km of its material was
gradually washed
into Mars' low-altitude northern plains.
K.P. Harrison and R.E. Grimm examined the fact that the areas on
Mars where
valley networks seem to be most concentrated are also those where
MGS'
magnetic sensors -- to everyone's surprise -- found local
magnetic fields
which seem to be areas where crustal iron minerals have been
permanently
magnetized by Mars' long-vanished early magnetic field.
Since this most easily occurs when molten rock is exposed to a
magnetic
field at the same time that it is rapidly cooled into solid form,
the
obvious possibility is that rising flows of underground magma may
have
collided in these areas with large amounts of groundwater
kilometers below
the surface, providing a flow of geothermal hot springs for the
valley
networks, and also cooling the magma quickly enough to
"freeze" a copy of
Mars' magnetic field into the resulting solid rock before Mars'
magnetic
field could reverse polarity (which, like Earth's, it probably
did every
million years or less) and thus scramble the permanently recorded
"fossil"
field.
D.M. Nelson examined the highlands south of the Elysium Basin --
through
which three especially big channels seem to have carried fluid
for a long
period -- and concluded that the area showed signs of having
undergone
repeated cycles of geological peace that would have allowed a
local layer of
ground ice to build up, and episodes of moderate volcanism just
right to
melt the accumulated ice and produce large water flows into
Elysium.
And I.E. Thorsos carried out calculations agreeing with the
growing belief
of geologists that volcanism wasn't the only substantial source
of heat on
early Mars -- the heat produced by the frequent giant impacts
that gouged
out the planet's craters during this "Early
Bombardment" age of the young
Solar System would in itself be enough to fuel "extensive
hydrothermal
systems".
James W. Head provided several papers elaborating his belief
that, during
part of Mars' "Hesperian" Period -- the middle one of
its three major
geological periods, running roughly 3.5 to 2 billion years ago --
Mars'
water-ice polar caps, which had been far bigger, were melting and
shrinking
back, leaving behind geological marks on the northern and
(especially) the
southern Martian surface that are characteristic of former
glaciers.
These, he says, include parallel linear gouge marks, lake beds
with the
unusual characteristics of big pools of meltwater underneath a
thick glacial
layer of ice, and "eskers" (winding ridges of sediment
deposited by
long-lived flows of meltwater trickling along underneath
glaciers).
He also claims that some southern mountains have the
characteristics of
ancient volcanoes that erupted underneath thick glacial ice,
which would
explain why the melt back occurred there.
Jeffrey Kargel went farther, claiming "there are very few
100-meter-size
impact craters superposed on the hypothesized glacial landscapes,
indicating
a relatively youthful age of one or more ancient glacial epochs.
Even more surprising is the discovery of intact crevasses and
gullies on
some debris-covered glacier-like masses, which argues for a very
recent warm
climate time."
Head, however, did backpedal somewhat on one of his most famous
claims: that
there is evidence of shoreline features running around the
boundary of the
great northern lowland region, which would indicate that the
lowlands were
filled with water during Mars' early days to make up an ocean
(the "Borealis
Ocean") covering one-third of the planet's surface area.
T.J. Parker had previously described two such "contact
features", running
parallel to each other, and proposed that they were the shores of
an ocean
which had been filled at two different levels for long periods of
time.
Head, in 1999, used MGS' laser topography maps to conclude that
"Contact 2"
(though not "Contact 1") did indeed run at the same
altitude for hundreds of
km, further suggesting that a Martian "sea level"
carved it.
However, in his new LPSC paper, he says" Comprehensive
analysis of hundreds
of high-resolution [MGS] images shows little compelling evidence
for
features that can confidently be interpreted as shorelines...
We find that evidence for oceans in the northern lowlands in the
Hesperian
is ambiguous; that is, it is capable of being understood in two
or more
possible senses.
Some properties of contact 2 are consistent with the Parker
hypotheses.
However, [its] detailed characteristics provide little supporting
evidence... This might be attributed to post-formation
modification, but,
nevertheless, positive supporting evidence at high resolution is
not yet
apparent."
In his overall review of the possible course of Martian history,
Bruce
Jakosky agrees that the astonishingly smooth sediment plains that
cover much
of the northern lowlands -- which some view as the remains of an
ancient
seafloor -- need not be such: "Stripping of Margaritifer
Sinus and Arabia
Terra [by waterflows, such as I mentioned earlier] would have
provided
sediment to the northern plains... debris would have filled the
plains to a
depth of about 120 meters or more, obviating the sedimentological
need for a
northern ocean." Parker himself, however, is not backing
down.
In another new LPSC paper, he claims that many detailed features
in this
area look, in MGS' pictures, just like shoreline remnants along
the edges of
the Pleistocene-era "Lake Bonneville" in Utah, which
later dried up to leave
the Bonneville salt flats.
Copyright 2001, SpaceDaily
===========
(5) EARTHQUAKE ALERT! HOW NEW TECHNOLOGY MAY SAVE LIFES IN
SECONDS
From ABC News, 27 April 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/internetearthquake010427.html
Earthquake Alert! Seismologists Experimenting With Quake
Notification Via
the Internet
By Melanie Axelrod
April 27 - Warning: Light tremor coming to Los Angeles in
approximately 10
seconds.
Someday soon in southern California, a message like this could
appear on
your computer screen.
Seismologists at the California Institute of Technology, the U.S.
Geological
Survey and the California Department of Conservation's Division
of Mines and
Geology are working on emergency response technology to alert
people who
happen to be online when an earthquake is coming.
The three organizations, collectively known as TriNet, are
working to form
the Southern California Seismic Network, which would produce data
for
emergency response and then transmit messages via e-mail to
participating
users.
TriNet aims to get 600 strong motion sensors working together
with 150
broadband Internet sensors to give citizens a warning that an
earthquake may
be coming. The $21 million-plus project has been sponsored by the
Federal
Emergency Management Agency with additional funding from the
state of
California and other technological partners such as GTE, Pacific
Bell and
Sun Microsystems Inc.
If TriNet is able to do what it proposes, southern California
would become
the most heavily monitored earthquake-prone area in the country,
boasts the
organization.
"[At TriNet] we're developing the capabilities to show how
to predict the
nature of strong shaking," said Thomas Heaton, a professor
of seismology at
CalTech who is involved with the TriNet program.
One Minute Warning- Or Less
As a first step, CalTech is now working on software that would
broadcast
online quake warnings to emergency workers and local authorities.
Jim Davis, chief of the California Division of Mines and Geology,
says that
the sensors will ultimately be able to relay computerized
messages almost
instantaneously once any type of shaking is felt.
"When an earthquake begins to occur, the fault begins to
rupture," said
Davis. "'We plan to monitor these areas with nearby sensors,
and use the
sensors' readings to estimate the source of the earthquake."
One major task
of the project will be in ensuring the messages are sent quickly
since
earthquakes happen fast. For example, it would take about 75
seconds for an
earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 to travel 130 miles from its
epicenter to
the Los Angeles metropolitan area.
Seventy-five seconds (or less than that) isn't a lot of time, but
the
experts assert that if everyone's Internet connection is working,
it could
be enough warning to evacuate a school, or even shut down
vulnerable
segments of the city's power grid.
"In a typical situation, there's only about 10 seconds or so
of notification
to Internet users about the type of earthquake that is coming.
The question
that's still unanswered is if there's anything you can do with
the seconds
that is useful," Heaton said.
We Have the Technology...
David Simpson, president of Incorporation of Research
Institutions for
Seismology (IRIS) in Washington, D.C., says the technology for
this kind of
project is available, although, he cautions, the system could
lead to some
inconvenient false alarms. And, he adds, it would have to be
directed at the
right people in order to be effective.
"This program is aimed at situations that are heavily
automated," he said.
"On the time-scale that we are talking about - seconds, not
minutes or hours
- this information would be best suited for people who can
control
electricity, or elevators."
Copyright 2001, ABC News
=========
(6) CERES 2001 WORKSHOP
From C Blanco <CBLANCO@alpha4.ct.astro.it>
ANNOUNCEMENT FOR the "CERES 2001" Workshop
Astrometry and Physics of Minor Planets from Observational
Networks
to be held in Paris, France on October 9-12 , 2001
A workshop dedicated to the bicentenary of the discovery of Ceres
by Piazzi
is proposed to be held in October 2001 in Paris, France,
organized by the
Institut de mecanique celeste/ Observatoire de Paris.
This workshop plans to gather professional and amateur
astronomers
interested in asteroids and more generally in small bodies of the
solar
system, modeling motions, studying physical properties of these
objects and
observing through networks. The goal of this workshop is also to
review the techniques used at present time for the observations
of
asteroids. The proposed topics of the workshop are:
* Astrometric observations of the asteroids: towards
a better accuracy
* Prediction and observation of stellar occultations
by asteroids:
increasing the efficiency
of the observers networks
* Photometric observations of asteroids: shape and
spin axis
determination
* Satellites of asteroids, binary asteroids: towards
the detection of new
systems
* Observation of other Solar System small bodies
* Networks of observers: what to expect from new
technologies?
More information at: http://www.bdl.fr/sympo/ceres2001.html
The registration fee is: 600 French Francs (91.60 Euros) and
includes
lunches, coffee breaks and the proceedings of the workshop
Some partial financial supports will be available. If you need
some, please,
send a demand with your registration form.
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(7) WHAT MEDIEVAL WITNESSES SAW WAS PERHAPS A BIG LUNAR IMPACT
AFTER ALL
From Duncan A. Lunan <astra@dlunan.freeserve.co.uk>
RE: WHAT MEDIEVAL WITNESSES SAW WAS NOT BIG LUNAR IMPACT, GRAD
STUDENT SAYS
From Ron Baalke <baalke@ZAGAMI.JPL.NASA.GOV>
"The idea that what humans witnessed and chronicled in 1178
A.D. was
a major meteor impact that created the 22-kilometer (14-mile)
lunar crater
called Giordano Bruno is myth, a University of Arizona graduate
student has discovered... Such an impact would have resulted in a
blinding, blizzard-like, week-long meteor storm on Earth - yet
there are no
such accounts in any known historical record, including the
European,
Chinese, Arabic, Japanese and Korean astronomical archives,
Withers
said. [...] Yet no vigilant 12th century sky watcher reported
such a
storm."
Dear Benny,
On the contrary, there is at least one 1178 record and several
possible
ones. These are extracts from the discussion of it in my latest
book, which
is now on offer to Random House:
"Ralph of Coggeshall's chronicle doesn't mention either the
lunar
event or the eclipse of 1178, but he describes the finding of St.
Alban's relics that year. To it another hand has added the words
'et
lapides pluebant - and stones rained down'.(29)
"About 1% of the ejecta, hurled up from the lunar surface,
would
exceed the Moon's escape velocity.(3) The 'sparks' which were
seen
flying off into space must have been big, and there are two
asteroids in
orbits which could have originated in lunar impacts. The one
designated
1991 VG is about ten metres across, though it has some odd
features which
I'll come back to in Chapter 21; 1999 CG9 is even larger,
between 220
and 380 metres in
diameter.(30)
"But some would have less than the combined escape velocity
for the
Earth and Moon.(3) Because they were from the Moon's
trailing
hemisphere, some of those could fall on Earth as secondary
impacts.
Since the Moon was near the Ecliptic, in June, its declination
(terrestrial latitude, projected on to the sky) would be 23 - 24o
North.
Debris from Giordano Bruno crater, at 37o.7 Lunar North, could
fall in
England (and in France?) but it depends on the angles of
impact and
of the secondaries' ejection from the lunar surface. Around 1200,
there
were big meteorite falls in Nebraska (31) and perhaps in New
Zealand. (32)
They might have been secondary impacts, or pieces of comet which
missed the
Moon altogether: Nebraska is 10o south of southern England, and
New
Zealand close to the Antipodes."
In addition::
"Laser retroreflectors, taken to the Moon by Apollo
astronauts and
Soviet Lunokhods, show that the Moon's orbital position is still
oscillating from one or more big impact(s) within the last
thousand
years, producing a libration of the Moon in its orbit by 15
metres.(18)
Such effects were predicted in the 19th century but not found,
proving that
the Moon had not been struck by any impacting body with more than
one
100,000th of the Earth's mass.(19) Now we know how
low comet masses
are, that has proved quite true, although the size of the crater
indicates that the energy released was around 100,000
megatons."
If the event reported by Gervase of Canterbury wasn't the impact
that
generated the Moon's extra libration, it would have to have
happened at some
other time, and there should have been falls of secondaries on
Earth then
too. I'm not aware of a better candidate event than the 1178 one
- does
anyone out there have candidate ones?
Nor, of course, does Withers explain why the monks said it
happened twelve
times or more in rapid succession, and why they described what
sounds like a
dust veil spreading round the Moon - buoyed up by a temporary
atmosphere?
References are:
3. Derral Mulholland & Odile Calame, 'Lunar Crater
Giordano Bruno',
Science 199, 875-877 (24th Feb. 1978).
18. Derral Mulholland, 'How High the Moon: a Decade
of Laser Ranging',
Sky & Telescope, 60, 4, 274-279 (Oct. 1980).
19. François Arago, "Popular Astronomy",
Longman, Brown, Green, Longman
& Roberts, 1858; Mike Baillie, "Exodus to Arthur,
Catastrophic Encounters
with Comets", revised edition, Batsford, 2000.
29. J. Stephenson, ed., Ralph of Coggeshall,
"Chronicon Anglicanum",
Rolls Series No.66, Longman & Co., London, 1875.
30. Robert Uhlig, 'Chunk of Moon Rock Seen Orbiting the
Sun', The Daily
Telegraph, 25th February 1999.
31. (Anon), 'Nebraska Crater Only a Pup', Astronomy Now, 8, 2,
13 (Feb.
1994).
32. Duncan Steel & Peter Snow, 'The Tapanui Region of
New Zealand: Site
of a 'Tunguska' Around 800 Years Ago?', in A. Harris & E.
Bowell, eds.,
"Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 1991", Lunar &
Planetary Institute,
Houston, Texas, 1992.
As the book is already under consideration by publishers, any
comments would
be appreciated!
Best wishes,
Duncan Lunan.
===========
(8) DON'T UNDERESTIMATE ANCIENT RECORDERS
From Mike Baillie <m.baillie@qub.ac.uk>
Benny,
perhaps I could inject a little something with respect to the
Gervase 1178
moon impact business.
Withers reports that had there been a significant moon there
would have been
a week-long meteor storm comparable to the peak of the 1966
Leonids
"Everyone around the world would have had the opportunity to
see the best
fireworks show in history" "Yet no vigilant 12th
century sky
watcher reported such a storm."
Well now, that may not strictly be the case. The first question
to ask is
what level of record would be acceptable. We are talking about
the 12th
century after all and record keeping wasn't quite up to modern
standards.
Would Withers accept a record of something falling from the
sky in the month of June 1178 as just possibly being in support
of a lunar
impact. I ask because there is just such a record and it is in
Britton's
1937 listing. It goes as follows:
"1178 Hailstones about June 24" (Britton's
interpretation)
Boece, the source, however said this:
Neirby this tyme now that ze heir me mene
In Albione (Scotland) greit wonderis (great wonders) than wes
sene
At midsomer (mid-summer), as my autho did tell,
Of hailstanis ane felloun schour that fell;
Quhilk stonis war of so greit quantitie;
Bayth man and beist, bot gif my author lie,
Beand thairout als lang as it did lest
Throw violence of that schour wer oprest
rough translation of last 5 lines
Of hailstones one foul shower that fell
Which stones were of so great quantity
Both man and beast , (but if my author lie)?
Bent throughout as long as it did last
Through (the) violence of that shower were oppressed
So, here, very close indeed to the Gervase "moon
impact" record is recorded
a shower of hail that was noteworthy enough to be called a great
wonder. On
past form this will be dismissed as just a coincidental
hailstorm. However,
given the fragility of the historical record when it comes to
matters
environmental, and given the fact that observers of a major
shower of
material from the sky may not be that critical in their analysis
of exactly
what the shower is composed of (being intent on avoiding it as in
this case
they obviously were), the fact that a notable shower takes place
at the
predicted time means that the moon impact cannot be dismissed out
of hand.
Mike Baillie
================
(9) SOME COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT NASA AND NEOs
From E.P. Grondine <epgrondine@hotmail.com>
Hello Benny -
I want to take a minute before getting started with this piece to
thank
Duncan Steel for generously leaving criticism of NASA NEO
programs to US
citizens such as myself, and for the courage he showed in letting
pass by
the opportunity to comment on the relative merits of spending
public moneys
on the NEO hazard or on manned Mars missions. Thanks ever so
much, Duncan!
What prompts this note are some common misconceptions that many
hold about
NASA and NEOs. The major misconception is that NASA is taking a
leading role
in the NEO search, while in point of fact, NASA was dragged
kicking and
screaming into the NEO search by physicist and Representative
George Brown
(Democrat, California), who has since passed on.
Brown's involvement with the problem started in 1991, following
an approach
to him by Gene Shoemaker and David Morrison; Brown managed to get
funding
authorized, and explicit instuctions issued to NASA for a study
to try and
define the NEO threat, and he moved this legislation through both
the House
and the Senate, giving it force of law. Undoubtedly Brown was
aided in this
effort by his fellow Representative from California on the other
side of the
aisle, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican). While it was
likely
that NASA would set up a NEO center in California (Brown and
Rohrabacher's
home state), given David Morrison's involvement it was viewed as
likely that
this center would be set up at the Ames Research Center in the
San Francisco
area; however, significant work for this project would flow to
the
California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
located near
both Brown and Rohrabacher's home districts (ridings).
The second widely held misconception is that it was not intended
for the NEO
search to include comets. When Morrison and Shoemaker returned
the report in
1994, Brown (and Rohrabacher) managed to get an ammedment
attached to the
House bill which directed NASA to establish a center to find both
asteroids
*and* comets above 1 kilometer in diameter. Brown was a
physicist, and he
set the NEO definition by the hazard as he then understood it:
anything,
either asteroid or comet, which could send mankind the way of the
dinosaur.
The limiting of the definition of NEO only to asteroids was a
later NASA
addition, as they sought to spend as little as they possibly
could on the
problem.
NASA did respond favorably at first to Brown and Rohrabacher's
amendment,
but in the proposed legislation it was not assigned the search
task alone,
but was to undertake the task in conjuction with the Air Force:
Shoemaker
was calling in the chips owed him by the Department of Defense
for his
earlier work eliminating expensive false alerts caused by high
altitude
asteroid and comet detonations. Brown's proposed ammendment,
while
intructing NASA to take up the task, also explicitly instructed
NASA to
co-ordinate its efforts with those of the Department of Defense.
Following this brief hope, for reasons which I do not know,
Brown's (and
Rohrabacher's?) efforts to move the House's ammendment through
the Senate
failed: thus the instruction lacked force of law, and NASA
abandoned work in
the area as quickly as it possibly could. Why did NASA do
this? Simply
because NASA had wished to remain focused on manned Mars flight
for quite
some time. To my knowledge, NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, whose
first job
in aerospace was working on a manned Mars mission using Saturn 5
launchers,
and who has otherwise performed excellently in a most difficult
job, has
absolutely no idea of the scale of the hazard faced from asteroid
and
cometary impact.
There matters sat until 1998. Director James Cameron's plans to
film an
impact movie, "Dark Angel", had led to the beginning of
work on two similar
films, "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon".
When released, these films would
lead to public inquiry, and Brown managed to get a House Space
Sub-committe
hearing held on NASA's failure to respond to the impact hazard.
While the
hearings gave Brown and other Representatives an opportunity to
express
their displeasure at NASA's failure to do much of anything at all
about
impact threat, once again there was no legislation passed through
the
Senate.
What finally forced NASA to respond was not this hearing, but
rather the
public's reaction following the release of the movies "Deep
Impact" and
"Armageddon". When NASA did respond, it did so in a way
which insured that
it would have to spend as little as possible on the problem.
First, by
taking voluntary action, NASA avoided explicit legislation from
the House
and Senate which would have definitively assigned NASA the task
of finding
these things. By this pre-emptive action NASA also left itself
able to shed
the NEO search task at any time an opportunity to do so presented
itself in
the future.
NASA established the NEO office under Don Yeomans at JPL, and
funded it at
$3 million dollars for its first year, up from the $1 million
dollars they
had spent on the NEO problem in the previous year, out of their
yearly
budgets of around $13,750 million dollars. This decision had
several
effects. The award of the NEO office to JPL infuriated Morrison,
who had
spent over 8 years of his life in trying to get the NEO office
established
at the Ames Research Center near San Francisco, and who had been
one of the
US's leading advocates for the NEO search. NASA management
diverted both
Morrison's anger and attention by assigning Ames the
"Astrobiology
Institute", which has as one of its emphasis, if not its
main emphasis, the
search for life on Mars. That this diversion has been effective
may be
judged by Morrison's inauspicious comments earlier this year on
the UK 3.5
meter telescope proposal, and more recently by his sadly
misinformed
statements on the lack of NELE's (Near Extinction Level Events)
within the
last 5 million years.
By this point, NASA had 1) managed to avoid explicit legislation
assigning
it the NEO search, 2) managed to assign the task to a
sub-contractor, JPL,
an institution which was not a NASA center, and 3) managed to
divert
Morrison, all of which insured that it would have to spend as
little as it
possibly could on the problem of finding these things. I may be
mistaken
about this, but it was now that NASA further reduced its
responsibilites for
the search effort by removing comets from the list of threatening
NEOs, as
though by this fiat they actually reduced the danger
presented by cometary impactors.
Now NASA had another stroke of good luck. Grant Stokes had begun
to work on
implementing a technique for obtaining asteroid data from the Air
Force's
GEODSS telescopes, using data which had previously simply been
thrown out.
The LINEAR system soon took a commanding lead in the search for
near Earth
asteroids. Note that the marginal cost of the LINEAR system, $1
million,
was paid for entirely by the Air Force, and there had been no
NASA
participation, involvement, or support.
For his part Yeomans was doing a magnificent job with the
completely
inadequate resources NASA gave him to deal with the problem,
focusing the
extremely limited moneys allocated by NASA on updating the CCD
sensors and
computers available to existing NEA search programs. This aid was
also given
to the LINEAR team, and soon NASA press releases crowed about the
success of
the "NASA supported" or "NASA funded" LINEAR
effort.
While NASA did increase the money available to Yeomans to $7
million dollars
in the following year, out of a budget of $14,000 million
dollars, this
ammount was known to be insufficient. Once again NASA
management enjoyed a
stroke of good luck, as David Packard Jr., son of David Packard
of
electronics manufacturer Hewlitt-Packard, became aware of the
impact hazard,
and began to fund NEO search efforts through the Packard
Foundation. His
initial donations went to the University of Arizona's Spacewatch
telescopes
at Kitt Peak, and his money, combined with that of NASA and the
Air Force,
allowed for substantial upgrades to the facilites there. (For
further
information, including that on other private contributors, see
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/spacewatch/funding.html)
Thus once again NASA
was able to take credit for yet another "NASA funded"
and "NASA supported"
effort.
A final important thing to remember when examining NASA
statements about the
scale of their response to the NEO threat is that the
moneys claimed always
include the cost of probes to asteroids and comets. That these
probes are
providing extremely valuable data is beyond doubt; but it is also
beyond
doubt that this data will be essentially valueless unless the
next
impactor is spotted before it hits. It needs to be clearly
understood that
while NASA is always looking for opportunities to support US
launch
manufacturers by buying their launch vehicles, that does not mean
that NASA
management actually comprehends the impact hazard in either real
terms or in
an operational manner.
The effects of these earlier NASA decisions are being played out
today, and
some of these effects I will cover in my next dispatch. In
closing this
note, I want to mention another piece of good luck that NASA had
in its
attempts to avoid responsibility for dealing with the NEO hazard.
Following shortly upon heart surgery, Representative George Brown
died on 15
July, 1999.
Best wishes -
Ed
--
1991 statement from the House Committee on Science and Technology
as enacted
in the NASA Authorization Bill:
The chances of the Earth being struck by a large asteroid are
extremely
small, but since the consequences of such a collision are
extremely large,
the Committee believes it is only prudent to assess the nature of
the threat
and prepare to deal with it. We have the technology to detect
such asteroids
and to prevent their collision with the Earth.
The Committee therefore directs that NASA undertake two workshop
studies.
The first would define a program for dramatically increasing the
detection
rate of Earth-orbit-crossing asteroids; this study would address
the costs,
schedule, technology, and equipment required for precise
definition of the
orbits of such bodies. The second study would define systems and
technologies to alter the orbits of such asteroids or to destroy
them if
they should pose a danger to life on Earth. The Committee
recommends
international participation in these studies and suggests that
they be
conducted within a year of the passage of this legislation.
1994 statement from the House Committee on Science and Technology
passed as
an ammedment to the House version of the NASA Authorization bill:
Catalogue of Earth-Threatening Comets and Asteroids
(a) Requirement -- To the extent practicable, the National
Aeronautics and
Space Administration, in coordination with the Department of
Defense and the
space agencies of other countries, shall identify and catalogue
within 10
years the orbital characteristics of all comets and asteroids
that are
greater than 1 km in diameter and are in an orbit around the sun
that
crosses the orbit of the Earth.
(b) Program Plan -- By February 1, 1995, the [NASA] Administrator
shall
submit to the Congress a program plan, including estimated
budgetary
requirements for fiscal years 1996 through 2000,
to implement subsection (a).
8/03/94: NASA APPOINTS NEAR-EARTH OBJECT SEARCH COMMITTEE
Donald L. Savage Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
August 3, 1994
RELEASE: 94-128
NASA today announced the establishment of a committee which will
develop a
plan to identify and catalogue, to the extent practicable within
10 years,
all comets and asteroids which may threaten Earth.
Dr. Eugene Shoemaker was appointed as Chairman of the
eight-member
Near-Earth Object Search Committee. Shoemaker, an astronomer with
the Lowell
Observatory and professor emeritus with the U.S. Geological
Survey, also was
co-discoverer of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 which collided with
Jupiter last
month.
The committee was formed in response to Congressional direction
to NASA to
develop a plan in coordination with the Department of Defense and
the space
agencies of other countries. The plan's objective is to
identify and
catalogue, to the extent practicable, the orbital characteristics
of all
comets and asteroids greater than about 1/2 mile (1 kilometer) in
diameter
in orbit around the sun that cross the orbit of the Earth. The
plan is to
include estimated budgetary requirements for fiscal years 1996
through 2000.
The Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and
Technology,
Representative George Brown, introduced the legislation as an
amendment to
the NASA Authorization Bill. The amendment calls for the NASA
Administrator
to submit the plan to the Congress by Feb. 1, 1995. Also
appointed to the
committee are:
Dr. Jurgen H. Rahe, Executive Secretary, NASA Headquarters,
Wash., D.C.
Dr. Gregory Canavan, Dept. of Energy Los Alamos National
Laboratory, N.M.
Dr. Alan J. Harris, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
Calif.
Dr. David Morrison, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View,
Calif.
Dr. David L. Rabinowitz, Carnegie Institution, Wash., D.C.
Dr. Michael J. Mumma, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, Md.
Col. Simon P. Worden, U.S. Air Force Space Command, Colorado
Springs,Colo.
=============
(10) A CURRENT NASA VIEW ON THE NEO HAZARD
From E.P. Grondine epgrondine@hotmail.com
Hello Benny -
Those who read my coverage of last year's Goddard Symposium
(available in
the CCNet Archives) may remember my endorsements there of both
the American
Astronautical Society and their annual Goddard Memorial Syposium;
this year,
once again, neither disappointed. The symposium's theme this year
was "2001:
A Transitional Space Odyssey", and the title reflected what
is currently a
very essential goal for many here: how to "odyssey" the
"transition" from
the Clinton administration's space programs to the space programs
of the
Bush Jr administration.
While I learned a great deal about Bush Jr's and NASA's plans for
space, I
think that CCNet participants will find Ed Weiler's presentation
on the
goals of NASA's Space Science directorate, and the brief
interview on the
NEO hazard I had with him afterwards, to be of the most immediate
interest.
BACKGROUND OF THE NEW ASSOCIATE ADMININISTRTOR FOR SPACE SCIENCE,
DR. EDWARD
WEILER
The Goddard Symposium provided me with my first opportunity to
get to know
Dr. Ed Weiler, Wesley Huntress's replacement as Associate
Administrator for
Space Science. Weiler received his Ph.D. in astrophysics from
Northwestern
University in January 1976, and following his graduation,
Princeton
University chose Weiler to be a member of their research staff.
They based
him at NASA'S Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, as
director of
science operations for the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory-3
(COPERNICUS).
Two years later, in 1978, Dr. Weiler joined the NASA headquarters
staff as a
staff scientist, and was promoted to Chief of Ultraviolet/Visible
and
Gravitational Astrophysics in 1979. At that time he became the
Program
Scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope, a position he has held
since then.
In March 1996 Weiler was appointed as Science Director of the
Astronomical
Search for Origins and Planetary Systems theme within the Office
of Space
Science, and he was named Associate Administrator for Space
Science in 1998.
You will notice no mention of recent NEO work in Dr. Weiler's
curiculum
vitae, and it showed.
ED WEILER'S TALK ON NASA'S SPACE SCIENCE GOALS: AN EMPHASIS ON
MANNED MARS
PRECURSOR MISSIONS, AND NO NEO MONEY
Weiler began his presentation with a list of the four big
questions NASA is
currently working on, as he put them: "How did the universe
begin and
evolve?, "How did we get here?, "Where are we going?,
and "Are we alone?.
Note that "Will we survive?" was not on the list.
The bulk of Weiler's talk concerned Mars and the preliminaries
for manned
flight to Mars. NASA's strategy for Mars was to look for life,
and to follow
the water. NASA would seek life on Mars, perform in-situ studies,
and
finally return Martian samples to the Earth for study. Weiler did
not
discuss what would happen if NASA did find life on Mars, and how
it would
then deal with the problem of back-contamination.
Weiler mentioned CO2 products, along with the traditional water
and
hydrocarbons, and this indicated his growing awareness of the
fact that CO2
plays the major role as a working fluid in current geology
processes on
Mars. He immediately returned to the subject of water, pointing
out that
during manned missions it could be used both for fuel and for
drinking
purposes.
It is interesting to note that Weiler made no mention of the
recently
discovered information which NASA Associate Administrator Joe
Rothenberg had
covered in a talk earlier in the day: the radiation levels and
types
occuring in deep space have been found to be so high that with
the current
shielding technologies, manned flight to Mars would be either
lethal to the
crew or very close to it. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin also
commented on
this finding during his presentation last week to the House
Science
Committee, and his comments on the radiation problem may be
viewed through
the recording of the hearing available at the House Science
Committee's
internet site by any here further interested in the problem of
manned flight
ot Mars.
THE US FACES A SHORTAGE OF PHYSICISTS: THE KIDS ARE ALL IDIOTS,
AND WE MADE
THEM THAT WAY
Weiler was not all Mars, however, and he spoke for some time
about the
problems NASA was having in finding physicists to staff its
"Living with a
Star" programs. He compared the situation with the decline
of Rome, and said
that the Office of Space Science was trying to do its part by
dedicating 1-3% of its budget to education.
I'm sure a large number of US citizens here wish him the best of
luck with
this, and also share with him that sinking feeling in their guts
that
something is seriously wrong here. It's just my opinion, and that
of some
teachers who I know, but many here think that Bush Jr's plan to
privatize
eduction is not going to do much to fix either the problems of
racism and
its effects on school funding, or the general social malaise,
including the
shunning of both responsibility and hard work, and the
glorification of
violence and immediate satisfaction. Without going into the issue
of why
this is not the Department of Education's responsibility, and
while Weiler's
money may be the equivalent of p*****g into a hurricane, we can
all bless
him for trying.
CHANGES IN THE NASA NEO EFFORT: AN INTERVIEW WITH ED WEILER ON
THE NEO
PROBLEM
During the question period following his talk, I asked Dr. Weiler
whether
his list of questions might have left off the important one,
which is "Will
we survive?", and I asked him whether NASA would make more
money available
for the NEO search.
Weiler said that this question formed part of the theme
"Where are we
going?" He further added that the budget would restrict the
NEO search to
that already set in the "Blueprint": find 90% of all
NEOs over 1 kilometer
in diameter. He went on to state that a 3 to 4 kilometer impactor
was
required for an extinction level event, and he described an
impactor of 500
meter diameter as being a "city buster". Weiler
continued that in his
opinion there was no way to find comets, and that with only a 2
to 3 month
(60 to 90 day) warning of their approach he did not think that we
could do
anything. He closed his remarks by bringing up the idea that Mars
could
serve as a "lifeboat" in such an event.
Immediately after the session Dr. Weiler kindly discussed the NEO
problem
with me for some time. Here I need to thank my old, old friend
Saunders
Kramer for giving up his own questions and graciously allowing me
the use of
Dr. Weiler's time.
I apologized to Weiler that I did not wish to seem rude, but his
thinking on
the problem reflected the state of our knowledge about 15 years
ago. Instead
of being offended, he asked me how, and I brought up the fact
that it took a
much smaller impactor than 3 to 4 kilometers to cause
extinctions, and that
city busters went down to 75 meters or so. Weiler acknowledged
that I was
correct. My immediate opininon, which was reinforced later by
some of his
other comments, was that this reflected a fundamental
disconnection and
survival mechanism in Weiler's mental
processes: as he can not figure out a way to deal with the impact
danger, he
quite conveniently "forgets" fundamental aspects of it,
relying instead on
vague memories leftover from his graduate education.
I continued, mentioning to him that current analysis by Russian
scientists
has shown that the Moon would make a better life boat than Mars,
and that
nuclear physicists were working on the problem and had determined
that it
was possible to stop or deflect these things.
Having finished with the preliminaries, and in anticipation of
the problems
the UK would face as a result of both Mad Cow Disease and the
Foot And Mouth
outbreak, I asked Weiler if NASA would "buy in" on the
UK NEO telescope, and
he told me "No way in Hell." This was not directed at
me,
and as he smiled, I smiled too, and I confirmed that this was
exactly his
position, and that I could use it as a quote for you.
My opinion about the defense mechanism incorporated in Weiler's
thinking was
reinforced by the fact that he immediately asked me why we did
not bother
the National Science Foundation (NSF) about the NEO hazard, as
they had
responsibility for ground based telescopes. He mentioned an
agreement (a
Memoranda of Understanding) between NASA and the NSF which gave
NASA
responsibility for space based telescopes, and the National
Science
Foundation responsibility for ground based telescopes
To put it mildly, I was stunned to the core, and try as I did, I
could not
do a very good job of hiding it. I had never realized this fact,
as from the
time (1997) when I first started to study the effects of
relatively small
historical impacts, I had always seen the House Space
Sub-Committe call in
NASA to account for why they had not undertaken the NEO survey
which the
Sub-Committee members had suggested to them; the Sub-Committee
had never
called in anyone from the NSF. In all of the testimony, I had
never heard
anyone from NASA, or anyone else for that matter, suggest even
once, not
once, that it was the National Science Foundation's job to
perform the NEO
survey, and not NASA's. I had never heard anyone from NASA
suggest to the
Sub-Committe members that they needed specific authorizing
legislation to do
this survey; I had never heard Dr. Huntress bring the matter up;
and
finally, I had watched NASA set up its NEO Office under Don
Yeomans out at
JPL without anyone from NASA raising either the issue of the
NSF's role or
of the need for enabling legislation.
In an earlier note I covered the history of Representatives
George Brown'
and Dana Rohrabacher's efforts to get NASA to actually do
something about
the NEO danger, as well as NASA's efforts to do as little as they
possibly
could about it. Based on the observation that from their
statements it was the legislators' intent that NASA undertake
this task,
clearly NASA did not violate its legislative authority in
establishing the
NEO office. Further, while I am not a lawyer, my understanding of
these
matters is that legislation, the interpretation of which includes
accounting
for the legislators' intents as expressed during the drafting of
that
legislation, always takes precedence over any agreement between
excutive
agencies, such as a Memoranda of Understanding.
REORGANIZATION OF US OBSERVATORY PROGAMS
The issues Dr. Weiler raised in his response were immediately at
hand for
him, though I did not know it at the time. After the first Bush
Jr budget
release in February, Space.com had reported that there was a call
for the
National Science Foundation and NASA to set up a "Blue
Ribbon" panel to
"study" transfering all of NSF's observatory programs
to the NASA Office of
Space Science. Unfortunately, during this time I had been
recovering from
the rear ending of my Benz, and was enjoying the side effects of
the
Flexeril prescribed for strained neck muscles; I had missed the
story.
Later on at the symposium I learned from Lori Garver that this
study had
been ordered by the White House's Office of Management and
Budget. It now
appears that the White House's Office of Management and Budget
had not been
exactly delighted with the National Academy of Sciences earlier
requests for
moneys for new telescopes, and had ordered the Blue Ribbon report
shortly
after it had received the NAS's telescope requests. The Blue
Ribbon report
is due September 1, 2001, and in reality it is not so much a
report, as a
study on how to do it: it is the President's, or at least OMB's,
intention
that all observatory programs are to be combined and included
under the NASA
budget.
Several points need raised now. With the exception of Carolyn
Shoemaker, I
do not think that any impact specialists were included on the
National
Academy of Sciences telescope team, as at that time it was
probably believed
by the NAS that NASA had taken over responsibility for NEO
detection efforts. Thus with the exception of her telescope for
finding
comets as they entered the solar system, no requests for other
impactor
detection telescopes were included in the initial NAS report.
Second, I can't identify any impact specialists from among the
Blue Ribbon
team's members:
Norman Augustine, Chairman; Lewis M. Branscomb, Harvard
University; D. Allan
Bromley, Yale University; Claude R. Canizares, Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology; Sandra M. Faber, University of California at Santa
Cruz; Robert
D. Gehrz, University of Minnesota; Philip R. Goode, New Jersey
Institute of
Technology; Burton Richter, Stanford University; Anneila I.
Sargent,
California Institute of Technology; Frank H. Shu, University of
California
at Berkeley; Maxine F. Singer, Carnegie Institution of
Washington; and
Robert E. Williams, Space Telescope Institute.
Third, the National Science Foundation budgets roughly $200
million annually
for ground-based astronomy. I don't know how much, if any, of
this money
goes for NEO searches, but I'm fairly sure that whatever the
amount is, it
must be trivial. Perhaps others here have a more accurate idea of
the
amounts, or lack therof.
The final item which needs to be noted here is that in the United
States the
allocation of money for telescopes and observatories is
controlled by
cosmologists, and that those seeking ways of dealing with the
impact hazard
play quite close to no role in deciding how these moneys are
spent.
THE WEILER INTERVIEW CONTINUES
To put it mildy, Weiler's declaration stunned me. Shifting tact,
I pitched
him a sympathetic question, agreeing that the use of nuclear
charges to stop
these things was clearly outside of NASA's competence. Weiler
agreed:
"Charges... ...I can't even fly an RTG. Do you know
what I go
through?", and I nodded my head.
Weiler paused and immediately stated, "Get me some
legislation, then we can
do it - then we can do it." I raised the point that
Representative Brown of
California had died, and that there was no one there now, and
Weiler agreed
but added that Representative Rohrabacher would occasionally
get on him about this.
I think that Weiler's conflicting statements, first his request
for aid in
getting enabling legislation, and second, his statement referring
to
Rohrabacher "getting on" him further reflect what I
consider to be Weiler's
own frustration at his inability to deal with the impact
threat. It is also
interesting to note that Weiler thinks it is the responsibility
of those of
us concerned about the NEO threat to get clarifying legislation,
rather than
NASA's responsibility.
HOW TO GET AN ACT OF CONGRESS
As I am still recovering from having my car hit, I myself do not
intend to
undertake any lobbying role at this time, but intend to devote
such time as
I have available after trying to get my affairs back in order to
studies of
historical impact events; to tell the truth, right now I really
don't have
much energy left over for providing you with coverage of events
in
Washington.
Of course, this won't deter me from now making some minor
suggestion to
those who do intend to lobby on this issue. For those who are
going to
lobby, it is necessary that they make sure that at least some
members of the
Blue Ribbon telescope panel are aprised of the full extent of the
impact
danger. Claude R. Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, may be
familiar with Grant Stokes' work on LINEAR, and may be the best
point of
contact, perhaps through Stokes; Shu sounds familiar, but I can't
place from
where.
Obviously, from Weiler's statement, on the House side
Representative
Rohrabacher is still interested in the issue, and I think he
could be
persuaded to move with even just a little bit of support; on the
Senate
side, Senator George Allen (Republican, Virginia, and Senate
Space Committee
Chairman) is somewhat aware of the danger, as the geology caused
by the
Chesapeake Bay Impact is having an effect today on Virginia's
fresh water
supplies. As for the other members, someone of David Packard Jr's
stature
and wealth could probably prove invaluable in gaining their
attention and
raising their awareness of the extreme danger we face from
impactors.
All I can do in addition to this is to wish you all good luck,
and finally
suggest that maybe a public relations event would work. Decide to
name the
newly equiped Spacewatch telescope in Arizona after the late
Representative
George Brown. Schedule the dedication ceremony at a time
convenient for George Brown's widow, Don Yeomans, Ed Weiler,
David Packard
Jr, and most importantly, Representative Rohrabacher and whoever
else from
the Congress you could get to attend. Either fly them by Meteor
Crater, or
arrange for a short trip to it if convenient. Mention your
problem to them
while they are there.
THE WEILER INTERVIEW CONTINUES
As I was becoming more and more stunned, I barely managed to ask
Weiler
about Carolyn Shoemaker's cometary telescope. He reminded me that
this was
from the National Academy of Science's telescope request list,
and then
emphasized again this was a ground based telescope, which would
come under
National Science Foundation purvue.
At this point I was no longer able to carry on the interview, as
the
implications of everything Weiler had just told me were only then
starting
to sink in. I closed the interview off by confirming with Weiler
once again
that the top NASA staff had met with Bush Jr, and then suggested
to him that
Bush Jr would be unable to replace Dan Goldin for several months
to come.
Weiler told me that to his knowledge Goldin was not going to be
replaced,
and asked me if I had thought Goldin was acting like a man who
was going to
be replaced. I confirmed his statements, offered him my short
list of
suspected recent historical impact events, which he took and at
least took a
brief look at, and thanked him for the interview.
THE WEILER INTERVIEW END
During his luncheon speech the following day Bob Walker informed
the meeting
that Bush Jr was interviewing candidates to replace Dan Goldin as
NASA
Administrator.
Why Bush Jr will not replace Goldin for some time, and why no one
wants the
job, are issues which I could report on in great detail later, if
the
Conference participants feel they'd really like to know more
about them. In
brief, the concerns are that Bush Jr may not be able to negotiate
an
agreement with Russia to mutually deploy ballistic missile
defense systems,
and that this may lead to Russia withdrawing from the
International Space
Station. If this occurs, as long as Goldin is Administrator, Bush
Jr will
have him available to offer up to the more staunch conservatives,
who for
some time have been blaming Goldin for involving Russia in the
station.
As to the validity of this scenario, it is important to remember
that Goldin
took the job of NASA Administrator at Bush Snr.'s request, and
that Bush
Snr. made the decision to involve Russia in the ISS. My estimate
is that
with full knowledge of the risk, and even though fatigued by some
10
years of public service, Goldin has agreed to stay on until the
outcome of
these negotiations becomes clear. I also think that Bush Jr is
not a man of
so low a caliber as to let attacks continue for too long, should
any
opportunity for them arise in the first place.
Should any of this happen, the job of NASA Administrator, which
normally
leaves its possessor under attack from the left for wasting money
on space,
under attack from the more extreme space cases for not flying men
off to
Mars immediately, and under pressure from every Representative
and Senator
to deliver more work to their own home districts or states, will
become even
less desirable.
I expect a new NASA Administrator to be named after completion of
the
ballistic missile defense negoitations with Russia, and this may
be expected
to occur within the next year.
I don't know whether or not a new NASA Administrator
automatically replaces
the Associate Administrator for Space Science.
WHAT I HANDED TO WEILER:
A SHORT LIST OF KNOWN AND SUSPECTED HISTORICAL IMPACTS AS OF
MARCH, 2001
Most, but not all, of the impact events listed here await
detailed
confirmation by field geologists; some are currently known fairly
well, and
are indicated by the lack of accompanying "?". Known
impacts which resulted
in no or few deaths are indicated by "miss". Detailed
information, as well
pointers to internet sites, the current state of research into
each separate
impact event may be found in the Cambridge Conference archives
maintained by
Bob Kobres at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html.
CLASS 8:
"A collision capable of causing localized destruction.
Such events occur somewhere between once per 50 years and once
per 1000
years."
Suspected and Known:
ca. 1584 BCE - Destruction of Hittite forces under T'e Hantilish
(Joshua
impactor)?
ca. 520 BCE - Destruction of Etruscan capitol city of Volsinii?
ca. 1 BCE - Brenham, Kansas
ca. 679 CE - Destruction of Colingiham Monastery?
ca. 800 CE - Impact in the Baltic Sea and death by local tsunami?
ca. 1000 CE (give or take a hundred years) - destruction of major
Native
American center
along the Saint Lawrence River?
ca. 1321-1368 CE Erh River fall in China?
1450 CE - miss in Wabar, Saudi Arabia
1490 CE - Ch'ing-yang fall kills over 10,000 (possibly hail)?
1868 CE - miss near Pultusk, Poland
1908 CE - miss (2 dead) in Tunguska, Russia
1930 CE - miss in jungle of Brazil
1947 CE - miss at Sikhote Ailin in Kamchatka, Russia
1972 CE - miss in South West Pacific
CLASS 9:
"A collision capable of causing regional devastation.
Such events occur between once per 1,000 years and once per
100,000 years."
Suspected and Known:
ca. May 10, 2807 BCE - Masse sets this as the date of the Indian
Ocean
impact and resulting tsunami?
ca. 300 BCE - Destruction of Ainu? Jomon ends in southern Japan,
appearance
of Yayoi culture
ca. 500 CE - Impact tsunami hits western Australia
580 CE - Destruction of Bordeaux region and city of Orleans?
[omited: 585 CE - Destruction of "two islands in the
sea"?]
ca. 750 CE - Great Raft formation, Louisiana, but unknown if
caused by
impact, hurricane, or methane hydrate explosion
ca. 1200 CE - Bald Mountains impact event leads to migration of
Cherokee
into devastated area?
ca. 1500 CE - Australian Great Wall of Water, with collapse of
Polynesian
megalithic cultures on Ponhpei and elsewhere
CLASS 10:
"A collision capable of causing global climatic catastrophe.
Such events occur once per 100,000 years, or less often."
Suspected and Known:
ca. 3114 BCE - Atlantic impact; Stonehenge I constructed, Mayan
Calendar
begins, tsunami leading to flood myths (Battle of Titans?)?
ca. 2345 BCE - Ullikummi cometary impactor pretty much wipes out
Hurrians;
either climate shift occurs at same time, or dust loading leads
to climate
collapse and global starvation
ca. 2345 BCE - Incineration of Harrapan city of Mohenjo Daro,
India; by
fragment of same comet?
ca. 2100 BCE - Rio Cuarto impact, climatic collapse, global
starvation
(confirmed)
ca. 1160 BCE - General migration in eastern Mediterranean,
following report
by observor from some distance away of loud noise and rush of
air?
ca. 536 CE - Dust loading leads to sub-Roman times becoming
sub-Roman.
Global climate collapse and starvation. Possible combination of
volcanic and
cometary dust
Information on both tsunami and airburst impact events affecting
the Maori
of New Zealand is currently undergoing analysis by Peter
Snow. I have also
been informed by Richard Wade that initial data on historical
impact events
in Africa will be published in the very near future.
===========
(11) ERRATA AND ADDENDA: MORE ON P/Tr CONTROVERSY
From Hermann Burchard <burchar@mail.math.okstate.edu>
Dear Benny,
support from Uralian geology for a West Sibirian comet impact at
250 Ma may
be weaker than expressed in my note of April 27 on CCNet,
regrettably. One
main purpose of the note had been just that: To find
evidence in the Urals
of a P/Tr impact. With less evidence the main hypothesis as
stated remains
unaffected. Below, some related errata and addenda, with
one
(admittedly not very strong) hint from the eclogites in favor of
an impact
theory.
First, the Uralian orogeny preceded 250 Ma. Paradoxically,
Eastern European
continental crust was being subducted under the oceanic West
Sibirian crust.
Eclogites, ultra-high pressure silicate minerals are formed in
subducting
slabs at a depth of 35 km, at about 10 kbar pressure, not at 10
km depth as
I had reported (pressure increases at 1/3 of a kilobar per
kilometer), or
according to other sources at even greater pressure up to 90 kbar
(this
would be at about 300 km?). The correct value would seem to
strengthen my
argunent that a cometary impact exhumed an eclogite facies in the
Urals,
but, according to Mary Leech of Stanford and London Universities
(papers
down-loadable from her web site), exhumation of eclogites along
the entire
2000 km length of the Urals had proceeded prior to 250 Ma and is
due to
common buoyancy, as these are fairly lightweight siliceous
minerals.
However, something does show in the eclogites: Between 315 to 230
Ma, timed
to about 250 Ma, there occurred a reburial and overthrusting
(from the
East). Could this be related to magmatic eruptions in western
Sibiria at 250
Ma [Nikishin, Ziegler, et al]? If so, this would be evidence for
cometary
impact. The eastern flank of the Urals was affected greatly by
magmatic
eruption in the West Sibirian Plane with reports of basalts being
interbedded among sedimentary strata. According to the
Columbia
Encyclopedia, ``the eastern slope drops abruptly to the W
Sibirian lowlands"
(a vast basalt filled terrestrial mare) just like a crater wall
would.
Novaya Semlya is considered a northward extension of the Urals.
Suspecting a
South Kara Sea impact at 250 Ma the curvy outline of the islands
again
remains an intriguing coincidence. As this is a puzzling story
with one
enigma inside another, additional amendments in the Sibirian P/Tr
hypothesis
may be forthcoming in the future -- for example could the arrest
of the
Uralian orogeny (with lack of post orogenic collapse) have its
cause in a
putative 250 Ma West Sibirian cometary impact?
Thanks.
Regards,
Hermann Burchard
===========
(12) REINVENTING PLATE TECTONICS
From Jon Richfield <richfield@telkomsa.net>
Hi Benny,
Konrad Ebisch is of course quite right.
>"The plate tectonics theory, proposed in the
1960s..."
1960's? Try Alfred Wegener, 1915, The Origin of Continents and
Oceans or even Abraham Ortelius 1596.<
Also try the work of Wegener's most important disciple, Alex du
Toit, who
actually did the field work to falsify Wegener's theory, and at a
sophisticated level discussed the various theoretical pros and
cons
concerning the mechanisms. His book "Our Wandering
Continents" Oliver & Boyd
1937, was a stunning and crushing vindication of the
theory.
du Toit was a professor of geology, which did not seem to make
much
difference to the reception of his work except in South Africa,
where he
wrote it and where it at least became controversial. It
just goes to show
how effectively one can smother sound work by simply ignoring
it.
And then rediscovering it decades later and claiming credit. To
people like
me, who had grown up believing in du Toit's work, this was
surprising and
offensive, but every rebuke and correstion seems to sink away
without a
ripple.
Cheers,
Jon
=========
(13) BEEP, BEEP! HERE COMES THE FEATHERED DROMAEOSAUR
From Worth Crouch <mailto:doagain@jps.net>
Dear Dr. Peiser:
It was exciting to learn that the 130 million-year-old
Dromaeosaur fossil
dinosaur was unearthed seemingly wrapped from head to tail in
primitive
feathers. As a geologist I have always noticed that some
dinosaurs seemed to
resemble weird birds more than giant lizards; consequently, given
the
evidence, it has always seemed reasonable that birds descended
from some
dinosaurs.
The origin of flight has, however, been debated intensely between
those that
believe flight first took place from animals in the treetops, and
others
that felt flight first took place from the ground up. I have
always believed
flight could have been possible either way, but until now there
has been no
fossil evidence that primitive flight could have started from the
ground up.
However, Dromaeosaur makes it possible to believe that other
dinosaurs might
have had feathers and given the environmental circumstances and
their
feathered evolution they may have jumped and flown, as does a
Road Runner,
from the ground up.
Years ago following an article published by the Scientific
American magazine
extolling the verities of flight starting from the treetops I
wrote a
rebuttal explaining why flight could have started from the ground
up. I used
the Roadrunner "Beep-Beep!" as an example of a bird
that flies from the
ground up. I thought my letter was quite good, but in their
snobbish quest
for status my letter to the editor wasn't even published.
Consequently,
readers never had the opportunity to examine my hypothetical
reasoning that
flight, as is the case with the flying squirrel, need not always
start from
the treetops.
I suppose someone at this very moment is writing to the
Scientific American
magazine, using the Dromaeosaur fossil dinosaur as a footnote to
his or her
thesis that flight could have started from the ground up. They
will probably
even use the poor Roadrunner as an example of a current ground to
air flyer.
If the article is written by someone of a status acceptable to
the
Scientific American magazine community it will probably be
published and to
all of them I say, "Beep-Beep!"
Worth F. Crouch
(Talako)
Choctaw Society of Astrobiologists
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 2 May 2001
-------------------------------------------------
"There is good news and bad news. The good news is that we
are at
last putting serious effort and money into local observations.
[...] The
bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is
expended are
unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than
physics to
represent important things like evaporation and convection,
clouds and
rainfall. [...] If we persevere patiently with observing the real
world and
improving the models, the time will come when we are able both to
understand and to predict. Until then, we must continue to warn
the
politicians and the public: don't believe the numbers just
because they
come out of a supercomputer."
-- Freeman J. Dyson, Institute for Advanced Study in
Princeton, 24 April 2001
(1) THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA
Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
(2) THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF CLIMATE
Tech CentralStation, 24 April 2001
(3) ICEBERG ALLEY IS MISSING A FEW BERGS
National Post, 30 April 2001
(4) SOME CLIMATE RESEARCH NOT SO HOT
TechnoPolitics, 29 April 2001
(5) NON-UNIFORM AND DISCONTINUOUS WARMING IN THE AREA OF THE
EASTERN
MEDITERRANEAN
CO2 Science Magazine, 2 May 2001
(6) CLIMATE HISTORY (GEOLOGICAL EPOCHS)
CO2 Science Magazine, 2 May 2001
(7) THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWLEDGE TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
CO2 Science Magazine, 2 May 2001
(8) CCNet, CLIMATE RESEARCH AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES (III)
Andrew Glikson <geospec@webone.com.au>
(9) AND FINALLY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT: CAR INDUSTRY JOINS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CAMPAIGNERS :-)
Yahoo News, 2 May 2001
============
(1) THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA
By Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>
Throughout the history of science, it has often been guts rather
than good
judgement that has led individuals to stand up and go against the
tide of
public opinion. Scientific controversies (often more so than
political ones)
thus often tell us a lot about the human condition. When
historians of the
current greenhouse warming hysteria will look back, they will
discern that,
as has happened so often with similar apocalyptic movements in
the past, a
few individuals, initially, pitted themself against scientific
dogma,
political intimidation and peer pressure.
Such is the global warming frenzy at the moment that almost the
entire
scientific establishment seems to have surrendered its habitual
role as
impartial and dispassionate institutions of unprejudiced and
even-handed
evaluation. In such a "climate of fear" it is not
surprising that journals
such as Nature and Science, to name just the most prominant
drivers of the
climate scare, take a purely political stand on the question of
carbon
dioxide emissions, whilst the New Scientist proclaims candidly
that "even
the slightest contrarian messages can be used by the oil and auto
lobby to
obstruct efforts to address global warming."
Despite such ominous intimidations against critical analysis and
scepticism,
nobody, I hope, will seriously regard Freeman Dyson as a puppet
of the
fossil fuel industry. In fact, Freeman Dyson is a liberal
nonconformist and,
at least in my eyes, the world's most respected scientist. That
he has
decided to speak out against the current greenhouse warming hype
(see his
commentary below), is perhaps the first sign that the tide may be
turning at
last.
Interestingly, all Dyson really does is to point out the most
obvious
scientific flaws of the greenhouse warming anxiety: "The way
the problem is
customarily presented to the public is seriously
misleading," he correctly
stresses. "The public is led to believe that the carbon
dioxide problem has
a single cause and a single consequence. The single cause is
fossil fuel
burning, the single consequence is global warming. In reality
there are
multiple causes and multiple consequences."
In reality, we don't know "how much of the carbon released
by fossil fuel
burning is absorbed by forests and how much by the ocean."
In reality, we
don't even know whether increased carbon dioxide may be doing
more good than
harm to our planet. In reality, if current research findings are
confirmed,
it would mean "that all the global climate models are using
wrong numbers
for absorption."
Of course, Dyson's scientific scepticism does not come as a
surprise. As one
should expect from a true scientific mind, his is a sober and
rationalist
reaction to the global hysteria in the wake of recent political
shenanigans
over the Kyoto Protocol. His criticism, however, is completely
ignored by
the science and environmental media - simply because it dooes not
conform
with current fads and fashions. No wonder, then, that you
will most likely
read his commentary first on CCNet.
Which brings me to some recent complaints about CCNet's coverage
and
handling of greenhouse warming catastrophism. In a letter to the
moderator
(see below), Andrew Glikson notes that CCNet is excepting
contributions
"which would never see the light of day in any professional
journal, either
because they are too controversial or/and because they do not
accord with
minimum scientific standards." Well, I don't know whether
Freeman Dyson's
commentary "accords with minimum scientific standards."
Whatever the case, I
like his evidence and arguments nevertheless. That his objections
have been
ignored by the scientific media goes without saying. CCNet would
not be the
thriving network it is if I were to immitate this ignorance
adopted by most
environmental journalists.
On the other hand, Andrew Glikson complains that my moderation of
the global
warming controversy is sometimes tendentious and biased. I have
admitted
that much already. I am, after all, a sceptic of greenhouse
warming
catastrophism. As such, I find it irresponsible to publish
apocalyptic-sounding predictions without reservation. That's why
I often try
to emphasise the purely speculative and hypothetical character of
most such
prophecies.
Andrew also suggests that CCNet should give advocates of the
greenhouse
warming alarm "equal emphasis." I find this advice less
convincing given
that I tend to post *all* scientific research findings related to
the global
warming debate. What is more, CCNet has repeatedly invited
climatologists to
discuss their methods and predictions with their sceptical
counterparts. I
actually share Andrew's preference for an open-minded and
balanced debate.
In reality, however, most greenhouse warming advocates
deliberately refrain
from debating with climate sceptics due to a political
consideration not to
legitimise the views of their "foes."
I hope you will enjoy reading the Freeman Dyson's enlightening
commentary.
The fact that you will find the views of one of the world's
leading
scientist published on CCNet (rather than in the traditional
science media)
may, at the same time, tell you something about the general
malaise in
environmental reporting. If you feel, however, that what Dyson
has to say is
part of a global conspiracy to save the struggling oil industry
(poor souls,
have pitty with them) and to wreck the globe, don't hestitate to
complain.
Benny J Peiser
=========
(2) THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF CLIMATE
From Tech CentralStation, 24 April 2001
http://www.techcentralstation.com/GuestColumnist.asp?ID=46
By Freeman J. Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton
University
In the nineteen-sixties the fluid dynamicist Syukuro Manabe was
running
global climate models on the supercomputer at the Geophysical
Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory in Princeton. Manabe began very early (before it
became
fashionable) to run models of climate with variable amounts of
carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. He ran models with carbon dioxide at
two and four
times the present abundance, and saw in the computer output the
rise in
average ground temperature that is now called Global Warming. He
told
everybody not to believe the numbers. But the politicians in
Washington
believed. They wanted numbers, he gave them numbers, so they
naturally
believed the numbers.
It was not unreasonable for politicians to believe Manabe's
numbers.
Politics and science are two very different games. In science,
you are not
supposed to believe the numbers until you have examined the
evidence
carefully. If the evidence is dubious, a good scientist will
suspend
judgment. In politics, you are supposed to make decisions.
Politicians are
accustomed to making decisions based on shaky evidence. They have
to vote
yes or no, and they generally do not have the luxury of
suspending judgment.
Manabe's numbers were clear and simple. They said if the carbon
dioxide goes
up, the planet will get warmer. So it was reasonable for
politicians to
believe them. Belief for a politician is not the same thing as
belief for a
scientist.
Manabe's numbers were unreliable because his computer models did
not really
simulate the physical processes going on in the atmosphere. Over
and over
again he said that his purpose when he ran computer models was
not to
predict climate but to understand it. But nobody listened.
Everyone thought
he was predicting climate, everyone believed his numbers.
The biosphere of the earth contains four reservoirs of carbon:
the
atmosphere, the ocean, the vegetation and the soil. All four
reservoirs are
of comparable size, so that the problem of climate is inescapably
mixed up
with the problems of vegetation and soil. The intertwining
between the four
reservoirs is so strong that it makes no sense to consider the
atmosphere
and ocean alone. Computer models of atmosphere and ocean, even if
they can
be made reliable, give at best a partial view of the problem. The
large
effects of vegetation and soil cannot be computed but must be
observed and
measured.
The way the problem is customarily presented to the public is
seriously
misleading. The public is led to believe that the carbon dioxide
problem has
a single cause and a single consequence. The single cause is
fossil fuel
burning, the single consequence is global warming. In reality
there are
multiple causes and multiple consequences. The atmospheric carbon
dioxide
that drives global warming is only the tail of the dog. The dog
that wags
the tail is the global ecology: forests, farms and swamps, as
well as
power-stations, factories and automobiles. And the increase of
carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere has other consequences that may be at
least as
important as global warming - increasing crop yields and growth
of forests,
for example. To handle the problem intelligently, we need to
understand all
the causes and all the consequences.
Several successful, important programs of local observation have
been
started in recent years. One program is measuring directly the
fluxes of
carbon dioxide moving between the atmosphere and the biosphere.
This is done
by putting instruments on towers above the local trees or other
vegetation.
In daytime in the summer, the vegetation is vigorously absorbing
carbon
dioxide. At night or in winter, the flux is going the other way,
with plants
giving off carbon dioxide by respiration. The soil also gives off
substantial fluxes of carbon dioxide, mostly from respiration of
microbes
and fungi. The instruments do not distinguish between vegetation
and soil.
They measure the total flux leaving or entering the atmosphere.
During the last few years, instrumented sites have been built in
many
countries around the world. Within a few years, we will know for
sure how
much of the carbon released by fossil fuel burning is absorbed by
forests
and how much by the ocean. And the same technique can be used to
monitor the
carbon fluxes over agricultural croplands, wetlands and
grasslands. It will
give us the knowledge required, so that we can use the tools of
land
management intelligently to regulate the carbon in the
atmosphere. Whether
we manage the land wisely or mismanage it foolishly, we shall at
least know
what good or harm we are doing to the atmosphere.
The amount of money spent on local observations is small, but the
money has
been well spent. The Department of Energy is funding another
successful
program called Atmospheric Radiation Measurements (ARM). ARM's
activities
are mainly concentrated at a single permanent site in Oklahoma,
where
systematic observations of radiation fluxes in the atmosphere are
made with
instruments on the ground and on airplanes flying at various
heights.
Measurements are made all the year round in a variety of weather
conditions.
As a result, we have a database of radiation fluxes, in a clear
sky and in
cloud and between clouds.
One of the most important measurements is made by two airplanes
flying one
above the other at different heights. Each airplane measures the
fluxes of
radiation coming up from below and down from above. The
difference measures
the local absorption of radiation by the atmosphere. The measured
absorption
of sunlight turns out to be substantially larger than expected.
The expected
absorption was derived partly from theory and partly from
space-based
measurements. The discrepancy is still unexplained. If it turns
out that the
anamolous absorption measured by ARM is real, this will mean that
all the
global climate models are using wrong numbers for absorption.
Another highly successful program of local measurements is called
Acoustic
Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC). It is the brainchild of
Walter Munk at
the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. ATOC uses low-frequency
underwater
sound to measure ocean temperatures. A signal is transmitted from
a source
on top of a seamount at a depth of three thousand feet near San
Francisco,
and received at six receivers in deep water around the north
Pacific. The
times of arrival of signals at the receivers are accurately
measured. Since
the speed of propagation depends on temperature, average
temperatures of the
water along the propagation paths can be deduced.
The main obstacle that Walter Munk had to overcome to get the
AOTC project
started was the opposition of environmental activists. This is a
long and
sad story which I don't have time to tell. The activists decided
that Munk
was an evil character and that his acoustic transmissions would
endanger the
whales in the ocean by interfering with their social
communications. They
harassed him with lawsuits, delaying the project for several
years. Munk
tried in vain to convince them that he also cared about the
whales and was
determined not to do them any unintentional harm. In the end, the
project
was allowed to go forward with less than half of the small budget
spent on
monitoring the ocean and more than half spent on monitoring the
whales. No
evidence was found that any whale ever paid any attention to the
transmissions. But the activities are continuing their opposition
to the
project and its future is still in doubt.
During the two years that the ATOC system has been operating,
seasonal
variations of temperature have been observed, giving important
new
information about energy transport in the ocean. If measurements
are
continued for ten years and extended to other oceans, it should
be possible
to separate a steady increase of temperature due to global
warming from
fluctuations due to processes like El Nino that vary from year to
year.
Since the ocean is the major reservoir of heat for the entire
climate
system, a measurement of ocean temperature is the most reliable
indicator of
global warming. We may hope that the activists will one day admit
that an
understanding of climate change is as essential to the
preservation of
wildlife as it is to the progress of science.
To summarize what we have learned, there is good news and bad
news. The good
news is that we are at last putting serious effort and money into
local
observations. Local observations are laborious and slow, but they
are
essential if we are ever to have an accurate picture of climate.
The bad
news is that the climate models on which so much effort is
expended are
unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than
physics to
represent important things like evaporation and convection,
clouds and
rainfall.
Besides the general prevalence of fudge-factors, the latest and
biggest
climate models have other defects that make them unreliable. With
one
exception, they do not predict the existence of El Nino. Since El
Nino is a
major feature of the observed climate, any model that fails to
predict it is
clearly deficient. The bad news does not mean that climate models
are
worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential
tools for
understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for
predicting
climate. If we persevere patiently with observing the real world
and
improving the models, the time will come when we are able both to
understand
and to predict. Until then, we must continue to warn the
politicians and the
public: don't believe the numbers just because they come out of a
supercomputer.
Freeman J. Dyson, professor emeritus of physics at the Institute
for
Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, is the recipient of the
1999 APS
Joseph Burton Forum Award, and author of a number of books about
science for
the general public. His most recent is The Sun, the Genome, and
the
Internet, which will be published this year.
Copyright 2001, Tech CentralStation
===========
(3) ICEBERG ALLEY IS MISSING A FEW BERGS
From National Post, 30 April 2001
http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20010430/548131.html
No evidence suggesting a link to global warming
Ian MacLeod
Ottawa Citizen
There is a dramatic and mysterious drop in the number of icebergs
lumbering
out of Canada's Iceberg Alley and into the North Atlantic Ocean.
Aerial reconnaissance flights for the Canadian Ice Service, the
latest of
which was Thursday, have spotted fewer than 400 icebergs in the
area
extending to a latitude of 57 degrees north, an area north of
Goose Bay in
the Labrador Sea.
"At this time of year, we'd be looking at about 1,000 bergs
in that same
area," says Luc Desjardin, a federal iceberg forecaster.
"Usually, May and
June could see several thousand. So it's way below what we used
to have."
Iceberg experts are trying to determine why.
The leading theory is that prevailing winds in the high North
have grounded
large numbers of icebergs in the shallow waters off the Baffin
Bay coast.
In a typical spring, thousands of bergs will slowly make their
way south
toward Newfoundland by riding a strong current down the Davis
Strait and
into the Labrador Sea. The route is dubbed Iceberg Alley.
But this year, "they seem to be too close to the shore for
coming down,"
says Mr. Desjardin.
"Even last fall, there was not a huge amount of bergs that
were in an ideal
location to physically come down. It's the most common
explanation that we
can offer. It's not the only one but the most probable one."
Another less likely explanation, he says, could be abnormal water
currents.
Or abnormally warm water temperatures that melt the bergs as they
drift
south.
"But that usually occurs once the sea ice has retreated
northward, in the
late May and June time frame. So since we haven't reached these
conditions
yet and we're still dealing with lots of sea ice along the
Labrador coast,
it's still kind of early to say."
Mr. Desjardin stresses there is no evidence suggesting a link
with global
warming.
Whatever the reason, this year's dwindling iceberg population is
a welcome
change for international shipping.
And it may also be good news for Newfoundland's iceberg-watching
tourism
industry.
"The few bergs that are there are closer to shore," he
says.
Copyright © 2001 National Post Online
===========
(4) SOME CLIMATE RESEARCH NOT SO HOT
From TechnoPolitics, 29 April 2001
http://www.technopolitics.com/home.html
By Howard Fienberg
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently reported
that a
rising "risk of infectious disease epidemics" is
"likely" to result from
global warming. As the U.S. takes heat for rejecting the Kyoto
Protocols,
global warming has become more than an abstract specter; it is
considered a
tangible threat to public health through a coming plague of
infectious
diseases like malaria and West Nile virus. However, a new report
from the
National Research Council (NRC) found little evidence to justify
such fears.
Questioning the validity of most climate models, the NRC
recommended further
research. In effect, the NRC report demonstrates that infectious
diseases
spread for many reasons. Global climate change is not obviously
one of them.
Changes in the weather can have dramatic impacts on diseases and
the pests
that spread them. However, the NRC report, "Under the
Weather," points out
that the relationship traditionally drawn between climate and
disease can be
very misleading. Other influences, such as ecological, biological
and
societal changes, can have an even greater impact. For example,
malaria and
dengue outbreaks can be caused by anything from deforestation to
population
increases. Thanks to increased globalization, diseases can be
transported
worldwide in a matter of hours.
This does not mean that the climate has no impact. The life
cycles of many
disease pathogens and vectors are directly or indirectly
influenced by
changes in temperature, precipitation and humidity, affecting
"the timing
and intensity" of outbreaks. Trouble is that most of the
links made between
climate and disease result from imperfect computer models. Modern
supercomputers can do amazing things, but effectively including
all relevant
factors in a climate model can prove a daunting task. Just as
firing off a
toy rocket in your back yard gives only an inkling of what the
launching of
the real space shuttle is like, so too do computer climate models
only
capture part of the story of infectious diseases. The NRC
cautions that such
models are good for some kinds of analyses, but "are not
necessarily
intended to serve as predictive tools," since they cannot
"fully account for
the complex web of causation that underlies disease
dynamics."
The NRC report stresses that there are many more influences than
climate,
including "sanitation and public health services, population
density and
demographics, land use changes, and travel patterns." At
essence, it
concludes that, even assuming the prevention of global warming
were a
reachable goal, fighting global warming is an ineffective method
of tackling
infectious disease. Strong public health measures "such as
vector control
efforts, water treatment systems, and vaccination programs"
are still the
most effective tools.
So why do so many people still insist that climate change is the
over-riding
threat to public health? Many may simply fear admitting
otherwise. Donald
Burke, chair of the NRC panel which released the report, told
National
Public Radio that he felt "awkward" that the report was
"not a strong
endorsement that global climate change will lead to an inevitable
holocaust
of infectious diseases."
Last September, the magazine New Scientist interviewed Paul
Reiter, chief
entomologist at the U.S. dengue research lab in Puerto Rico.
Interviewer
Ehsan Masood, after noting that "even the slightest
contrarian messages can
be used by the oil and auto lobby to obstruct efforts to address
global
warming," asked, "what¹s wrong with emphasizing the
risks of global warming
if it'll lead to greater public awareness and investment in
things like
climate change research?" Reiter replied that the ends do
not justify the
means; the funding and commitment of honest science is required
to handle
infectious diseases. He concluded that it was "the
advancement brought about
by our modern economies that put these diseases at bay" in
the developed
world. By denying others the opportunity for that advancement
"on the mere
basis of emotive arguments founded on uncertain climate
science... we will
be committing a serious mistake."
Many believe that global warming is a looming global catastrophe.
They may
be right. But does this belief justify targeting global warming
as the bogey
for every scientific problem we face? Infectious diseases are a
public
health issue, first and foremost. Derailing public health
solutions may suit
the broader cause of environmental alarm, but it does not help
victims of
these diseases, either here or in the developing world.
HOWARD FIENBERG is research analyst with the Statistical
Assessment Service
(STATS), a nonprofit nonpartisan organization researching science
and public
policy.
Copyright 2001, TechnoPolitics
============
(5) NON-UNIFORM AND DISCONTINUOUS WARMING IN THE AREA OF THE
EASTERN
MEDITERRANEAN
From CO2 Science Magazine, 2 May 2001
http://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n18c1.htm
Reference
Hasanean, H.M. 2001. Fluctuations of surface air temperature in
the Eastern
Mediterranean. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 68:
75-87.
What was done
The author investigated surface air temperature trends with data
obtained
from meteorological stations located in eight Eastern
Mediterranean cities:
Malta, Athens, Tripoli, Alexandria, Amman, Beirut, Jerusalem and
Latakia.
The period of analysis varied from station to station according
to available
data. Malta had the longest temperature record (1853-1991),
while Latakia
had the shortest (1952-1991).
What was learned
Of the eight temperature histories, four exhibited overall
warming trends
and four exhibited cooling trends. Inter-decadal variations
of various
periodicities, however, were noted in the temperature records at
all
stations. Also noted by the author was the presence of an
"important
warming around 1910," which began nearly simultaneously at
all of the
longer-record stations. A second large warming was noted in
the 1970s; but
it was "not uniform, continuous or of the same order"
as the warming that
began about 1910, nor was it evident in all the stations.
What it means
An important observation to come out of the study was the fact
that all of
the stations exhibited similar uniform warming trends that began
about 1910,
but that only some of them exhibited a less coherent and
discontinuous
warming trend in the 1970s. One reason for these two
contrasting sets of
behavior is that the warming observed at the turn of the century
is most
likely indicative of a true regional, if not global, phenomenon
(perhaps
solar-induced), as it was observed at all stations; while the
warming
observed at some stations in the later part of the 20th century
is not a
true global phenomenon. A possible explanation for the
different warmings
of those cities that experienced temperature increases in the
1970s may be
differences in city urbanization histories and patterns, which
could have
resulted in uniquely expressed urban heat island development at
each
measurement site. These local phenomena must be fully
understood before
data from such sites are used to construct global temperature
trends.
Copyright © 2001. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
=======
(6) CLIMATE HISTORY (GEOLOGICAL EPOCHS)
From CO2 Science Magazine, 2 May 2001
http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/geologicepochs.htm
In an effort to understand present climate and how increases in
anthropogenic CO2 emissions may impact future climate, scientists
often look
for clues in climates of epochs past. One such clue is the
persistence of
millennial-scale temperature oscillations throughout the
Pleistocene (see
Raymo et al., 1998 and Climate Oscillations in our Subject
index), where
variations of 3 to 4.5°C are observed during glacial periods and
variations
of 0.5 to 1°C are observed during interglacials (Oppo et al.,
1998).
Other clues have been found in proxy temperature and CO2 records
of the
Miocene and Eocene epochs. Working with sediment cores from
three deep sea
drilling sites, Pagani et al. (1999) reconstructed a
history of atmospheric
CO2 concentration over the early to late Miocene (25 to 9 million
years
ago), finding that atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the Miocene
were
similar to concentrations observed during the Pleistocene, i.e.,
180 to 290
ppm, but that at the height of the Miocene climatic optimum
(approximately
17 million years ago), deep water and high-latitude surface water
temperatures were as much as 6°C warmer than they are
today. Thus, the
authors state that the "uniformly low" concentration of
atmospheric CO2
during the Miocene "appears in conflict with greenhouse
theories of climate
change." They also report "there is no evidence
for a sharp decline in
[atmospheric] CO2 associated with EAIS [East Antarctic Ice Sheet]
expansion"
during the Miocene and that "atmospheric carbon dioxide
rises following the
expansion of EAIS," which findings are also in conflict with
the greenhouse
theory of climate change.
With regard to the climate of the Eocene (55 to 35 million years
ago), a
similar decoupling of temperature and atmospheric CO2 is reported
(Pearson
and Palmer, 2000). Once again, at a time when temperatures have
been
estimated to have been as much as 5°C warmer than today,
atmospheric CO2
concentrations were determined to lie between 180 and 550 ppm,
with a best
estimate of 385 ppm (Pearson and Palmer, 1999). For those
searching for
clues as to how future climate may be impacted by increases in
atmospheric
carbon dioxide from the great climate epochs of the past, it
would thus
appear, in the words of paleoclimatologist Thomas Crowley, as
quoted in
Science (Vol. 284, p. 1745), that "it could be the whole
carbon dioxide
paradigm is crumbling," at least, as news writer Richard
Kerr adds, "when it
comes to explaining very long-term climate change."
References
Oppo, D.W., McManus, J.F. and Cullen, J.L. 1998.
Abrupt climate events
500,000 to 340,000 years ago: Evidence from subpolar North
Atlantic
sediments. Science 279: 1335-1338.
Pagani, M., Authur, M.A. and Freeman, K.H. 1999.
Miocene evolution of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Paleoceanography 14: 273-292.
Pearson, P.N. and Palmer, M.R. 1999. Middle Eocene
seawater pH and
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Science 284:
1824-1826.
Raymo, M.E., Ganley, K., Carter, S., Oppo, D.W. and McManus,
J. 1998.
Millennial-scale climate instability during the early Pleistocene
epoch.
Nature 392: 699-702.
Copyright © 2001. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
========
(7) THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWLEDGE TO ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
From CO2 Science Magazine, 2 May 2001
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v4_edit/v4n18edit.htm
In the 9 April 2001 issue of U.S. News and World Report, two
thoughtful
people try to tell us what we should be doing about one of the
biggest
environmental concerns of all time - anthropogenic CO2 emissions
- as they
lament the Bush administration's decision to walk away from the
Kyoto
protocol. One of them - John Leo (p. 22) - calls it
"an unnatural stand,"
as he asks "Why don't conservatives care about saving the
planet?" The
other - Editor-at-Large David Gergen (p. 100) - describes the
decision as
"risking the environment" in a move that could
"darken the prospects for
mankind."
Clearly, the hearts of these gentlemen are in the right place;
but without a
knowledge of all the pertinent facts, their prescription for the
planet
could well be way off base and, in fact, prove our downfall ...
and that of
the rest of the biosphere as well.
It thus behooves us to seriously consider the findings of Tilman
et al.
(2001), reported just four days later in the pages of Science,
which Leo and
Gergen had obviously not the advantage of seeing when they
composed their
essays. In an analysis of the global environmental impacts of
agricultural
expansion that will likely occur over the next 50 years, which
was based
upon projected increases in population and concomitant advances
in
technological expertise, the group of ten respected researchers
concluded
that the task of meeting the doubled global food demand they
calculated to
exist in the year 2050 will likely exact an environmental toll
that "may
rival climate change in environmental and societal impacts."
What are the specific problems? For starters, Tilman and his
colleagues note
that "humans currently appropriate more than a third of the
production of
terrestrial ecosystems and about half of usable freshwaters, have
doubled
terrestrial nitrogen supply and phosphorus liberation, have
manufactured and
released globally significant quantities of pesticides, and have
initiated a
major extinction event." Now, think of doubling those
figures. In fact, do
even more; for the scientists calculate global nitrogen
fertilization and
pesticide production will likely rise by a factor of 2.7 by the
year 2050.
In terms of land devoted to agriculture, they calculate a less
ominous 18%
increase over the present. However, because developed countries
are expected
to withdraw large areas of land from farming over the next 50
years, the net
loss of natural ecosystems to cropland and pasture in developing
countries
will amount to about half of all potentially suitable remaining
land, which
would, in the words of Tilman et al., "represent the
worldwide loss of
natural ecosystems larger than the United States." Looking
at it another
way, the scientists say this phenomenon "could lead to the
loss of about a
third of remaining tropical and temperate forests, savannas, and
grasslands." And in a worrisome reflection upon the
consequences of these
changes in land use for global biodiversity, they note that
"species
extinction is an irreversible impact of habitat
destruction."
These findings should come as no surprise to readers of CO2
Science
Magazine, for we have dealt with them editorially many times (1
Oct 1999, 1
Feb 2000, 15 Nov 2000, 21 Feb 2001). Hence, we are in full
agreement with
Tilman et al. when they say "an environmentally sustainable
revolution, a
greener revolution, is needed." In fact, something far above
humanity's
normal ability to devise and execute will be required to avert
the impending
catastrophe; for as Tilman and his associates rightly conclude,
"even the
best available technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent many
of the
forecasted problems."
Here, then, is the real and truly inescapable problem facing the
world and
every living thing therein: where will we find the food and water
needed to
sustain our growing populations? We are going to need much more
of both of
these precious commodities if we are ever going to make it
through even the
first half of the current century without self-destructing and
taking most
of the rest of the biosphere with us. So we ask Mr. Leo and Mr.
Gergen the
very same questions they posed in their essays. Do you "care
about saving
the planet" and doing those things that will not
"darken the prospects for
mankind"?
If you were sincere in your writing, and we believe you were, you
will
carefully consider a fact that is hardly ever mentioned in the
international
debate over anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and that is, that if
there is any
one thing that is known about carbon dioxide and global change
with any
certainty, it is that more CO2 in the air substantially enhances
the growth
of plants and the efficiency with which they utilize water.
Doubling the
atmosphere's CO2 concentration, for example, typically increases
crop
productivity by 30 to 40%, while it increases plant water use
efficiency
even more, making it possible to produce considerably greater
quantities of
food with little to no increase in the amount of water used. And
in natural
ecosystems, where water and other resources are often limiting,
the positive
effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment can be even larger.
The enormity of the environmental problems we will surely face in
trying to
feed the world of tomorrow - including our children and
grandchildren and
all the rest of the biosphere - demands that we ask ourselves if
we are
ready to "risk the environment," as Mr. Gergen puts it,
by using up nearly
every bit of land and water on the face of the globe to meet
caloric and
nutritional needs, while polluting the rest of the planet and
leaving next
to nothing of value for nature, or if we will stubbornly take an
"unnatural
stand," as Mr. Leo describes it, and not allow the ongoing
rise in the air's
CO2 concentration to continue to bring about the only
"environmentally
sustainable revolution," to borrow an appropriate phrase
from Tilman and
company, that can go above and beyond what man's technological
genius has
the capacity to do and provide the extra productivity and
efficiency edge
the biosphere will surely need to meet the food security
challenges of the
coming half-century.
Industrialized society's "exhalations" of carbon
dioxide are truly a
godsend; for if we will let them, they can be the basis of Tilman
et al.'s
"greener revolution." It's as natural as breathing; and
for vegetation,
that's exactly what it is. Through the pores in their leaves,
earth's plants
breathe in the CO2 humanity releases to the atmosphere and it
becomes the
basic building block of everything they produce. Ask your
children about the
process. They learn it in grade school. Plant's love CO2. It's
good for
them. And what's good for plants is good for everything else,
humankind
included.
In the end, however much we may try to ignore these facts, we
cannot deny
that we possess this knowledge. And we now possess the additional
knowledge
that we desperately need what more CO2 can do for us, that it's
absolutely
essential, in fact, to avert a catastrophic breakdown of the
biosphere over
the next half-century, as we reported for the first time last
year in
Technology (Idso and Idso, 2000) - see our Journal Review
"Will There Be
Enough Food?" - and as Tilman et al. have now confirmed in
Science. And
having this knowledge, we are morally obligated to act upon it.
Mr. Gergen says "strong leaders must summon us to the
mountaintop." He is
right. But we must know what mountain to climb, and that's where
a knowledge
of the pertinent facts becomes so important; for if we cannot see
the truth,
as the proverb rightly says, "where there is no vision, the
people perish."
And if we turn our backs on carbon dioxide, which could truly be
a savior
for the planet, and crucify CO2 upon the cross of a counterfeit
and
misguided environmentalism, the people of the earth will do just
that, they
will perish, and not many years hence.
Dr. Craig D. Idso
Dr. Keith E. Idso
References
Idso, C.D. and Idso, K.E. 2000. Forecasting world food
supplies: The impact
of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Technology 7S:
33-55.
Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D'Antonio, C., Dobson, A.,
Howarth, R.,
Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W.H., Simberloff, D. and Swackhamer,
D. 2001.
Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change.
Science 292:
281-284.
Copyright © 2001. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(8) CCNet, CLIMATE RESEARCH AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES (III)
From Andrew Glikson <geospec@webone.com.au>
Dear Benny,
I refer to your comments on CCNet 27.4.01.
I appreciate your honesty in admitting: "I accept your
criticism that I
select citations which I prefer, reword titles according to my
sense of
humour and even brand unsubstantiated alarms as a
"scare". These are normal
working practices of editors and moderators, not just in the
world of the
political press but also in the scientific media." (B.
Peiser, 27.04.01).
You add "You just need to look at the alarmist tone and
often biased
coverage of the global warming issue in journals such as New
Scientist,
Science and Nature." However, in comparing CCNet (or any
other electronic
bulletins for that matter) with Nature and Science you overlook
the fact
that (1) papers in these journals are fully refereed by the
specialists/authorities in the respective scientific disciplines,
and (2)
editorial comments/views are separate and normally signed by
their authors -
leaving no doubt as to who said what. On the other hand,
suppression of
opposite points of views in professional journals is not entirely
unknown,
although in my experience is (fortunately) still relatively
minor.
Inherently electronic networks are open to any contributions (in
the case of
CCNet excepting personally antagonistic comments - I approve of
your policy
in this regard). This includes contributions which would never
see the light
of day in any professional journal, either because they are too
controversial or/and because they do not accord with minimum
scientific
standards. The strength of electronic bulletins is
that, whenever anyone
ventures to present mistaken or fabricated evidence and/or
interpretations,
others are in the position of offering immediate correction. This
freedom
can not be denied since, should anyone attempt to censor
contributions,
other electronic bulletins will pop out like mushrooms after the
rain.
The issue is the separation of editors' own views from the
ways/formats in
which the views of others are presented, as well as the overall
tone/emphasis of the bulletin, reflected by selection of
headlines, for
example. Naturally, editors are entitled to express their views
as freely as
do contributors, so long as it is under their own name. On the
other hand,
in their role of moderators they need to ensure that diverse
points of views
receive equal emphasis - a principle with which selective choice
of
headlines and title changes is hardly consistent.
This is because selective headlining/captions constitutes a clear
invitation
for the proponents of certain views, commensurate with those of
the editor,
and at the same time discourage proponents of opposite points of
view. A
clear imbalance emerges, as evidenced in CCNet by the scarcity
(although not
absence) of contributions from active climate scientists who have
identified
the connection between greenhouse emissions and climatic change.
I note that CCNet is now open to contributions of purely
ideological nature,
such as for example "And finally, ignore gloomy
intellectuals and look at
the facts" by Ronald Bailey (cited from Reason Online")
(CCNet 27.4.01).
Please clarify whether CCNet would welcome philosophical and
political
contributions of a similar nature?
Science is the fragile child of freedom. One hopes that the role
of
"moderator" of a "scholarly electronic
network" would be to encourage debate
and refrain from allowing his/her particular views and
ideological
preference, right or wrong, to dominate the bulletin.
Sincerely
(Dr) Andrew Glikson
02-05-01
Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 0200
========
(9) AND FINALLY, BELIEVE IT OR NOT: CAR INDUSTRY JOINS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CAMPAIGNERS :-)
From Yahoo News, 2 May 2001
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010502/n02190838.html
Ford expected to say global warming a serious issue - WSJ
NEW YORK, May 2 (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F - news), is
expected to
release a report this week saying that it believes global warming
is a
serious issue it must address, the Wall Street Journal reported
in its
online edition on Wednesday.
The focus on the severity of global warming comes in Ford's
second-annual
``corporate citizenship'' report, and marks the latest in a
series of moves
by the auto maker to distinguish itself as more environmentally
committed
than its rivals, the paper said.
Some of Ford's rivals also have tempered their previous
opposition to moves
to reduce greenhouse emissions, the paper noted. DaimlerChrysler
AG's
(NYSE:DCX - news) chairman has said he supports the goals of the
Kyoto
Treaty on global warming. General Motors (NYSE:GM - news)
continues to
oppose the Kyoto accord, but increasingly has talked up its own
efforts to
clean up vehicles and plants, the paper said.
Ford officials declined to discuss the details of the report
until it is
released later this week, the paper said, but the company
committed itself
last summer to improving the fuel economy of its sport utility
vehicles by
25 percent over five years. By acknowledging that global warming
is a
legitimate concern, Ford will give ammunition to those calling
for stronger
action, including tougher federal fuel-economy rules, the paper
said.
Ford shares closed down $1.18 at $28.30 on Tuesday, off a 52-week
high of
$31.42 and up from a year low of $21.69.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.