PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 136/2000 - 20 December 2000
--------------------------------
"On any given day there are probably 25 volcanoes erupting
around
the world. There are volcanic crises every day, there are not
meteorite
crises every day."
--William Rose, Michigan Technological University,
18 December
2000
"We need to protect civilization (some part of it or in
whole). It's
worth the effort. And the price of such protection is not too
high but the
price of neglect is much higher. So, we should work for the
Protection of the Earth and People. There is also an extremely
valuable
set-off for such a program. It helps people to develop mutual
understanding
and respect, to join their efforts facing challenging problems.
[...]
Our ancestors invented and implemented a lot to provide survival
of their
families, homes and tribes. We are obliged to them by our
existence.
And it is our obligation to our descendents to protect our common
home and
family for them."
--Vadim A. Simonenko, Space Shield Foundation,
19 December 2000
(1) DISASTER ENVY: SCIENTISTS SAY VOLCANOES BIGGER THREAT THAN
ASTEROIDS
American Institute of Physics, 18 December
2000
(2) SWEDES SEARCH FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY IN IMPACT CRATER
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(3) SIPI STUDENTS TO HELP ID METEORITES
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(4) ASTEROID 2000 YA
Space Weather News for Dec. 19, 2000
(5) IMPACT SCARES AND HOW TO AVOID THEM
Astronomy Now, January 2000
(6) SOME COMMENTS FROM THE SPACE SHIELD FOUNDATION
Vadim A. Simonenko <sva@sva.ch70.chel.su>
(7) MOSCOW PRESS CONFERENCE
Anatoly Zaitsev <zav@berc.rssi.ru>
(8) NOTHING WRONG WITH RUSSIAN ASTEROID ALERT
David J. Johnson <starman@inct.net>
(9) RUSSIAN ASTEROID ALERT RUMBLES ON
Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
(10) PANSPERMIA AND SCIENCE: THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEBATE
Andrew Glikson <geospectral@spirit.com.au>
(11) THE SOLAR FORCING OF GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING
Timo Niroma <timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi>
==============
(1) DISASTER ENVY: SCIENTISTS SAY VOLCANOES BIGGER THREAT THAN
ASTEROIDS
From American Institute of Physics, 18 December 2000
Contact: Rory McGee
Rmcgee@aip.org
301-209-3088
American Institute of Physics
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 18 DECEMBER 2000
Scientists say volcanoes bigger threat than asteroids
San Francisco, CA (December 18, 2000) - While a giant asteroid
may have
wiped out the dinosaurs, modern Earth is at much greater risk
from a threat
closer to home, said volcanologists this
weekend at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union
in San
Francisco. "On any given day there are probably 25 volcanoes
erupting around
the world," says William Rose, a professor of
Geological Engineering and Sciences at Michigan Technological
University.
Rose says volcanoes pose a bigger threat than asteroids for
people around
the world, "there are volcanic crises every day, there are
not meteorite
crises every day."
Rose, who presented new research at the meeting, says people need
to be more
aware that they are living near active volcanic systems. Rose
points out
that in addition to volcanoes like Mt. St. Helens and Mt.
Rainier, places
like Yellowstone, Valles Caldera in New Mexico, and Long Valley
Caldera in
California are still active systems that could pose a threat at
some point
in the future. "A volcano is like an animal that sleeps
almost all the
time," says Rose, "but it's still alive."
And just as planetary scientists are working on ways to predict
and mitigate
the threat of asteroid impacts, Rose and other geophysicists are
working to
determine what kinds of risks volcanoes pose. In order to predict
future
activity, scientists study past eruptions, try to date them, and
look for
patterns that can tell them how long some of these volcanoes
sleep. Rose
hopes that eventually geophysicists will be able to predict the
likelihood
of activity, "we hope that we can see much longer into the
future." Rose
says eventually that prediction time could be measured in years.
"We are
trying," Rose says, "to convert risk from a vague
concept into a meaningful
number."
For more information:
Rory McGee
Inside Science News Service
(301) 209-3088
Rmcgee@aip.org
Expert:
William Rose
Volcanologist
Professor, Dept. of Geological Engineering and Sciences
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI
(906) 487-2367
raman@mtu.edu
==============
(2) SWEDES SEARCH FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY IN IMPACT CRATER
From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/dec2000/2000L-12-18-01.html
ESKILSTUNA, Sweden, December 18, 2000 (ENS) - Sweden will spend
at least
$777,000 to investigate the possibility that an old meteorite
crater
contains enough energy to heat the city of Stockholm.
One billion years ago, a meteorite hit the earth on the southern
part of the
island of Björkö in Lake Mälaren. The crater is 10 kilometres
(6.2 miles) in
diameter. The impact of a meteorite can cause fragments in the
bedrock,
resulting in porosity that is up to 10 times greater than normal.
In such
volume, the rock contains water where the temperature rises 15ºC
for every
kilometre of depth, which corresponds to an energy potential of
4,000
terrawatts.
Scientists estimate that the Björkö structure contains a heat
volume which
could provide 70 percent of the energy needs to heat the city of
Stockholm
on a sustainable basis. The crater is situated between eight and
13
kilometres from three of the city's existing district heating
power plants:
Hässelby, Fittja and Igelsta.
The Swedish National Energy Administration (STEM), following a
decision by
the Energy Development Board, has granted funding of up to
7,515,000 kroner
(US$777,214) to the Björkö Energiprojekt.
The funding will allow a closer study of the structure of the
crater and the
potential for geothermal energy recovery, as well as the
structure's
suitability as a heat exchanger. The study involves drilling
three
exploratory holes in the crater.
"The Björkö energy project entails a not inconsiderable
economic risk which
the business community is scarcely in a position to take on at
this point in
time," says Thomas Korsfeldt, director generation of STEM.
"However, the
potential of the project is great enough that it justifies taking
the risk,
especially in light of the Energy Administration's commission to
support the
transition to a sustainable energy system."
The project is being conducted under the auspices of the
Department of
Geodesy & Photogrammetry at the Royal Technical Institute in
Stockholm.
The endeavor is headed by a team of researchers from the Royal
Technical
Institute, Stockholm University and the Scandinavian Water
Environment
Council.
A critical path of filing reports will allow the project to be
abandoned if
the results are negative.
"By providing funding, the National Energy Administration
can pave the way
to an interesting use of energy that is sustainable in the very
long term if
the results are positive," adds Korsfeldt. "If this
phase is successful, I
assume that the business community will be willing to take on
primary
responsibility for continuing the project."
Assistance is being provided by a reference group representatives
of Birka
Energi, Sydkraft, Svensk Geofysik, the Chalmers Institute of
Technology, the
Lund Institute of Technology and the Stockholm County
Administrative Board.
Studded with more than 1000 islands, Lake Mälaren is a popular
resort area.
On the shores of the lake are a number of cities, including
Stockholm. The
Viking city of Birka, the first big town in Sweden, was founded
on the
island of Björkö in Lake Mälaren. It dates orginally from
about A.D. 750 and
was abandoned shortly before 1000. Birka is included in the
UNESCO list of
World Heritage sites.
© Environment News Service (ENS) 2000. All Rights
Reserved.
==============
(3) SIPI STUDENTS TO HELP ID METEORITES
From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/203865news12-19-00.htm
SIPI Students to Help ID Meteorites
By John Fleck
Albuquerque Journal
December 19, 2000
With the help of some money from NASA, University of New Mexico
scientists
plan to enlist students at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute in the
search for meteorites.
UNM's Institute of Meteoritics gets some 200 rocks a year from
members of
the public who bring them in for analysis, thinking they might be
meteorites, according to institute scientist Horton Newsom.
Most aren't, but the process of telling the good from the bad
will offer
SIPI students a lesson in geology and the chance to help make the
occasional
rare find, Newsom said.
Full story here: http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/203865news12-19-00.htm
===========
(4) ASTEROID 2000 YA
From Space Weather News for Dec. 19, 2000
http://www.spaceweather.com
ASTEROID ALERT: On Dec. 22nd a newly-discovered near-Earth
asteroid, 2000
YA, will fly past our planet only two times farther away than the
Moon. It's
the 13th-closest approach to Earth by any known minor planet. The
50-meter
space rock --about half the size of a football field-- will
likely brighten
to 15th magnitude late Thursday as it races through the
constellation
Andromeda at several degrees per hour.
===========
(5) IMPACT SCARES AND HOW TO AVOID THEM
From Astronomy Now, January 2000
Another asteroid impact scare - another retraction. As the media
hype that
surrounded asteroid 2000 SG344 subsides, Benny Peiser looks at
how future
false alarms might be avoided.
On November 3, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and
NASA released
a statement which announced that the Earth might face a small
risk of being
hit by a near-Earth object (NEO) in 2030. The next day, NASA and
the IAU had
to retract their initial announcement. Within hours of their
statement,
observational data of the object taken more than 18 months
earlier had
neutralised the initial impact risk calculations. Yet despite
this new data,
many of the world's news outlets continued to publish
apocalyptic-sounding
headlines throughout the following week. The events surrounding
this latest
asteroid scare raise important questions about the communications
problems
and the handling of asteroid alerts within the scientific
community.
The SG344 debacle
On September 29, a small near-Earth object, designated 2000
SG344, was
discovered by David Tholen and Robert Whiteley using a telescope
on Mauna
Kea, in Hawaii. The unusual nature of its orbit suggested that it
is a
man-made rocket booster from the Apollo era. It could also be a
small
asteroid measuring between 30 and 70 metres. When, one month
later,
pre-discovery observations of this object were identified, it
soon became
clear to a number of orbit calculators that this unidentified
object may
pose a remote but non-zero chance of colliding with earth in 30
years time.
Paul Chodas of the Near-Earth Object Program Office at NASA's Jet
Propulsion
Laboratory estimated a one in 500 chance of the object hitting
the Earth on
September 21, 2030.
Double checking
These calculations were verified by a Technical Review Team of
the
International Astronomical Union. Three days later, this
information about a
possible Earth impact in 2030 was published by the IAU and NASA.
The
unnecessary and rushed announcement was due to IAU guidelines,
which request
that the calculations of a "significant impact risk"
(i.e. NEOs that score
level 1 or higher on the Torino Scale) should be made public
after 72 hours
if verified. These guidelines, however, rush the IAU into making
premature
announcements. Although the statement made clear
that additional data would, most likely, "show with
certainty that it will
miss the Earth entirely," the announcement was published
despite the
knowledge that observers were still searching their files for
pre-discovery
data. To make matters worse, some rather alarmist comments made
by NASA
officials about the potential damage that such an impact would
cause
triggered yet another global asteroid scare.
Ever since the controversial announcement of a small but non-zero
impact
possibility of asteroid 1997 XF11 back in March 1998, the problem
of how to
handle these exceptional objects that are, briefly, on a
potential collision
course with Earth has tormented the NEO research community.
Despite all debates, suggestions and IAU guidelines, the problem
has
returned to haunt the community time and again.
The handling of the latest asteroid scare has made clear, once
more, that
there is still a major problem with regard to the dissemination
of
information about such near-Earth objects. Clearly, the important
thing is
to ensure that the information is available to astronomers who
are in a
position to confirm or deny the calculation - by means of new,
post-announcement observations, through the recognition of images
on
archival photographs, or both. The question is how this can be
best
achieved.
What went wrong?
The main mistake - with the SG344 announcement and with the five
other
asteroid scares that there have been so far - was in the way
information
about essentially correct computations was either inappropriately
worded, or
wrongly circulated or both. This failure in properly
communicating
with astronomers has caused unnecessary distress to the public.
The crux of
the problem was the failure to wait for additional data to
arrive, either in
the form of new observations or pre-discovery data, the latter of
which was
predicted to exist in the files of the Catalina Sky Survey. In
four of the
six asteroid scares, the potential hazard was eliminated from the
list of
worries within days, if not hours, of the announcements.
On a positive note, one could argue that the past mistakes have
helped to
educate and enlighten astronomers, science journalists and the
interested
public about the problems of dealing with such objects. But what
have we
learned? What can we do to avoid another unnecessary asteroid
scare? And how
might observers be alerted to the need for observations and
archival
searches without the transmission of undue alarms to the press
and public?
As far as astronomers are concerned, the information about
"virtual
impactors" should be peer reviewed and then posted on
scientific websites so
that those who can confirm the calculations and those observers
who can do
something about the object can monitor it for as long as
possible. This
would be much more appropriate than issuing a public false alarm.
Whenever
an impact prediction is available and the object is still
observable, no
public announcements are necessary because additional data will,
in almost
all cases, eliminate the initial impact risk.
Given the very short arcs across the sky subtended by the
thousands of
main-belt asteroids that are detected each lunation, possible
Earth-impact
trajectories could be drawn through many of them. Yet it would
definitely
not be appropriate to send out any sort of announcement every
time we
calculate such a remote impact risk as this.
Observations taken during one night - as those that led to the
SG344
announcement were - don't produce any sort of certainty in an
orbit
prediction. It has also become obvious that the existence of the
Torino
Scale, flawed as it is in several aspects, has been quite
ineffective in
terms of its main aim of enlightening the public. In fact, we
could in the
future have cases of objects reaching Torino level 6 or 7
(presumably with
the associated worry to the public), before plummeting to zero as
soon as
extra data allow the object's orbit to be calculated more
precisely.
The SG344 asteroid scare, based on a highly vague set of
observations taken
during one single night, and its retraction less than 24 hours
later,
demonstrates that we have still not learned our lessons from past
mistakes
and embarrassments. It is important that these blunders are not
repeated
again. Each of the six asteroid scares of the past 2.5 years has
been
interesting and has contributed to a learning process for us all.
If we can
really make progress, now, on the matter of alerting observers
but not
distressing the public unduly, I would regard that as a fine
achievement.
Dr Benny Peiser is a member of Spaceguard UK and a Fellow of the
Royal
Astronomical Society. He is the moderator of the
Cambridge-Conference Network (CCNet).
Copyight 2000, Astronomy Now.
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(6) SOME COMMENTS FROM THE SPACE SHIELD FOUNDATION
From Vadim A. Simonenko <sva@sva.ch70.chel.su>
Dear Dr. Peiser,
There was published in CCNet some information about a press
conference which
took place in Moscow on December 14. Unfortunately, there are too
many
distortions in these publications to correct them. It looks
easier to write
something from the beginning.
Beside that, I see some confirmation of another rather bad
tradition to show
Russians as a brutal creatures and to fight them. So, I would
like to give
just some short general or may be conceptual notions on the
topics.
1. Moscow press conference was convened on initiative of Russian
popular
magazine Khimia I Zhyzn' (Chemistry and Life) in the wake of the
SPE-2000,
which was held at Emporia last September. Their representative
attended the
Conference. However there were no representatives of central
Russian media.
So, it was proposed to have some meeting with media in Moscow.
2. As for me, the main goal of this press conference was to
extend some
education among media representatives. Frankly saying, I did not
meet even a
single correct thought among those, which were cited as mine. In
particular,
I told about 2000 NEAs of 1 km but found in information just half
of them.
Yes, I've mentioned 1000, but saying that they should be
discovered. There
are even more exaggerated distortions of thoughts of my
colleagues. Nobody
told about Sikhe-Alyn event as of million-people-loss potential
one, but it
was written... My opinion, we should have many meetings with our
media to
educate them and make them professionals in NEA area.
3. It seems that you recommend to start with accurate information
presented
to the public rather than this kind of ridiculous hotchpotch of
misleading scare stories.
Thank you for the recommendation, we have started so in 1994 and
continue to
do as we can now. It was published in many popular articles, in
the SSF
web-site, in Proceedings of the SPE conferences. We shall
continue this
mission in spite on any wrong presentation of the topics either
in media,
CCNet, or in scientific articles.
4. We have very limited opportunity to work on the problems of
Space
Protection of the Earth as we realize them. We cannot have in
this country
so extended observational program as in the US. However, our
astronomers
have some programs (not only follow-up, but it is also very
important). And
we are trying to help them. Unfortunately, there is extremely low
state
support for such program in this country now.
5. At the same time we have some unique experience in space
mission
programs, in understanding impact events and in impact mitigation
technologies. I cannot realize why it irritates some people. In
particular,
many peculiarities (a lot of rocks on the surface, square
craters, grows),
which were mentioned as strange for NEAR Eros data, are just
simple
consequences of impact mechanics, which are well known for our
specialists.
I guess, if we have better opportunities for communications there
would be
benefit for both Russian and Western scientists.
6. We are interested in SPE technology development. We are
working in this
area as professionals. This problem is much more complicated than
non-specialists think usually. Unfortunately non-specialists
write more
often and easier that professionals. Even there will be ten year
warning
time for rather simple case of 1 km asteroid it is very short
time to
provide acceptable and reliable mitigation program. But what can
be done if
the threaten object will be a comet even with several years
warning time?
Nothing now. However there are technical opportunities (not too
complicated)
but they should be studied and developed.
7. We have a completely other attitude in this country to the
impacts of
Tunguska class bodies. We regard that they should be watched and
neutralized
on their last way. For the current world such an impact happens
once per one
or two centuries and will be an awful event. So, it is necessary
to develop
short-time-observation ability and an alert system (more probably
with
space-based telescopes and radio telescopes). It is necessary to
develop the
space ready-for-interception system with means of dispersion of
similar
small bodies. Such system will not be too simple, but it is still
affordable
now and will be rather reliable efficient 10-20 years later.
8. There is no direct governmental support for research like
mentioned in
this country now. There is some very small non-direct support. In
particular, SPE-2000 was supported partly (25%) by Minatom.
However, there
are no official objections against such studies. So, we have
rather extended
group of skilled specialists who work on different aspects in the
extended
area of SPE. We try to develop some efficient mechanisms for co
ordination
of our efforts. In particular, it is the mission of Space Shield
Foundation.
I guess that there is similar activity in the US and European
countries may
be with more efficient governmental support. I hope that the
efforts can be
and will be combined.
9. I have some personal experience. Shortly it sounds like this:
All the
wrong that can happen will happen. The worst things you can
imagine are not
too wrong if you are prepared to them. When Nature sends the
challenge it
gives the way to solve it. Better to start now than to delay to
the last
day. Even not being used for the purpose the good job can be used
for the
benefit of people (in the NEA case for civilian colonization of
the space).
And the last point. While I meet really difficult problem I am
trying to
solve it from the end. Usually it helps to find the best way for
the
solution of the whole problem.
10. We need to protect civilization (some part of it or in
whole). It's
worth the effort. And the price of such protection is not too
high but the
price of neglect is much higher. So, we should work for the
Pprotection of
the Earth and People. There is also an extremely valuable set-off
for such a
program. It helps people to develop mutual understanding and
respect, to
join their efforts facing challenging problems.
I beg your pardon for some sharpness. I appreciate highly the
CCNet mission.
It is extremely valuable for me personally. I really regard that
CCNet plays
very important and even unique role in education of scientists
and other
people interested and involved in NEA problems.
My final point is (and I told something similar on the mentioned
press
conference)
Our ancestors invented and implemented a lot to provide a
survival of their
families, homes and tribes. We are obliged to them by our
existence. And it
is our obligation to our descendents to protect our common home
and family
for them.
I wish the success to CCNet. I hope to have better mutual
understanding in
future. I believe there will be international collaboration on
Space
Protection of the Earth and we can joint our efforts to
correspond the
unique challenge of the problem.
With great respect,
Vadim A. Simonenko
=============
(7) MOSCOW PRESS CONFERENCE
From Anatoly Zaitsev <zav@berc.rssi.ru>
Dear Dr. Peiser,
I wish to express my sincere congratulation with Christmas and
the New Year
and Millenium.
I wish you further success in your work and personal happiness.
Some words about the article published in The Moscow Times, 16
December 2000
(CCNet 18 December 2000). It is written very incorrectly.
I send to you two articles written in 1996, in which some
problems are
stated about which there was a speech at a Moscow press
conference [the
papers will be posted on CCNet tomorrow, BJP]. I shall send you
my last
article, "Conceptual Project of the Planetary Defence
System", after its
translation into English in January.
With kind regards
Anatoly Zaitsev
Project Manager
Lavochkin Association
mailto:zav@berc.rssi.ru
=============
(8) NOTHING WRONG WITH RUSSIAN ASTEROID ALERT
From David J. Johnson <starman@inct.net>
Dear Benny,
I find nothing wrong in the Russian's statements, they are merely
what we
have all echoed in the past few years. I may not agree with
moving to the
moon, but this was a mere analogy, but also in reality that too
may be a necessity
at some point in time.
Here in the United States a great deal of effort has been spent
in this Star
Wars idea, which for the most part appears to be a dismal
failure. Such
effort should be better spent in Planetary Defense development
rather than
its original intent, for it is this effort in which every
nation would benefit. It may be a two edged sword in its
development, but it
is worth the hassle.
During the Apollo missions the U.S. had a surplus of expendable
rockets
which were specific for space flight, the U.S. no longer has such
an
inventory, where in the Russian
Space effort has. The Russian research on Deflection and
mitigation of a
asteroid or comet targeting Earth should not be dismissed or
taken lightly,
as they are viable plans, of which are part of the subject which
Andy Smith
has referenced, and I plan to attend that conference.
The Space Shield Foundation is similar to the Spaceguard
Foundation in many
ways, yet Funding for the Russian program is nearly non existent,
and sorely
needs a number of tools and equipment, yet there ideas and what
they have
achieved in absence of some things is impressive.
Personally I welcome the Russians, as I would any other Nation to
join in
this quest, to which we all realize is of paramount of
importance, as the
Survival of Mankind actually does depend on what we do now and in
the near
future. Remember, "United we Stand, Divided We
Fall", in
short we have a better chance of survival if we work together,
instead of
some of the petty arguments I have viewed on the CCNet in the
past few
months. An impact may not occur in our life times, but it will in
our
children's, and it is for those children and the future that
allot of our
work is dedicated too.
Thus an International Cooperative between All Nations is an
important
issue. There have also been discussions earlier this year that
the United
Nations should be included in this effort, as they are the
Diplomats, we are
scientist, I can talk with Dr. Simonenko, and understand him as
we speak the
language of science as well as being a human being with the same
concerns. I
am not a politician or a diplomat, and I do not seek to be one,
especially
after the last fiasco we called an election.
The Russians are also correct in the area that we may have only
48-72 hours
notice that were about to die, as the number of
observatories looking, as
well as doing Follow up work in
tracking are all still to few in number, and historically, the
ones which
may be the most dangerous are the ones we never see coming till
they have
already passed the Earth. Were then left to just scratch our
heads and ask,
where did that come from.
To often in this venue things are chastised or dismissed to
quickly or made
fun of, which is not very scientific at all, the last time it was
NASA, this
time our Russian Colleagues. CCNet provides a good sounding
board, however
Dr. Peiser is at times selective on what he publish, which is not
really a
bad idea, as he does a pretty good job at keeping questionable
remarks from
the net. We often do not agree on the content, and we have each
had our
moments of arguments, but on the question of impacts, we need to
put aside
some of the reteric, and get the show on the move, we all know
what is
needed, and our biggest opponents are not each other, but
the politicians
whom we seek to educate and support these efforts.
One must remind themselves periodically what the bottom line is,
and that is
Mankind's Survival, for with out the efforts of Spaceguard or
Space Shield,
Saving the Whale is a mute subject, if that whale has no ocean or
Earth to
reside on. As for the SSF and SPE, I am proud to assist in
this effort.
Regards,
Dr. David James Johnson
==========
(9) RUSSIAN ASTEROID ALERT RUMBLES ON
From Michael Paine <mpaine@tpgi.com.au>
Dear Benny,
RUSSIAN ASTEROID ALERT RUMBLES ON is an appropriate title for
that item on
CCNet 19 Dec. Of course the article lost all credibility when I
got to the
last paragraph:
"With asteroids measuring up to 10 kilometers in diameter
and
traveling at speeds of up to 20,000 kilometers an hour, Earth
would stand
little chance if it was hit by a big one."
That's 5.5km/s - about half of the Earth's escape velocity - the
theoretical
lower limit for asteroid impact speeds. 55km/s is more like it
(getting
close to a head-on collision). In any case "Earth"
would hardly notice a
10km impact - it is the fragile creatures crawling over its
surface that
would be in trouble.
cheers
Michael Paine
===============
(10) PANSPERMIA AND SCIENCE: THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEBATE
From Andrew Glikson <geospectral@spirit.com.au>
Dear Benny,
Further to my statement (CCNet 12.12.00) "Last but not
least, the propensity
of panspermia advocates to use rather derogatory expressions in
their
communications, for example accusing critics of panspermia of
"loose
terminology" (Max Wallis, CCNet 11.12.00), or "crazy
interpretation of
quantum physics" (Max Wallis, CCNet 11.12.00), or
"unfortunate ignorance"
(C. Wickramasinghe and F. Hoyle, CCNet, 20.11.98), only serves to
create a
suspicion they regard their idea as beyond scientific
debate." - the pattern
continues. Thus, Max Wallis' comments (CCNet, 18.12.00)
contains dismissive
expressions such as "For all his divertionary points, Andrew
Glikson can not
deny that panspermia is accepted as a working
hypothesis...".
I suggest that references to whether scientific notions are
"accepted" or
"unaccepted" hardly carry a greater validity than, say,
the fact that a very
large proportion of US citizens "believe" in the
reality of UFOs. Technical
arguments stand or fall on their own merit rather than on
"science by
consensus".
Wallis refers to panspermia as a testable hypothesis in contrast
to the
Drake equation. Panspermia is certainly testable, but while a
suspicion (if
not proof) of fossil micro-organism in Martian meteorites has
been raised
and interplanetary bio-debris transport is possible in principle,
no single
microbe or virus have to date been detected in meteorites or
cosmic dust.
Claims of "discovery" of microbes at 16 km altitude by
weather balloon
(CCNet, ) - a level contaminated by terrestrial components - only
serve to
emphasize this point. A radio search for intelligent
extraterrestrial
civilizations has been conducted for many years. Todate
neither panspermia
nor the drake equation can claim any direct observational
breakthroughs,
thus remaining in the realm of the philosophy of science and
statistical
predictability, respectively.
Regarding Paul Davies' concepts on a possible relationships
between the
principles of quantum mathematics (including the "Grover
formula", 1999,
which corresponds to the quantitative DNA/RNA/amino acids
relationships),
the computer-like behaviour of nucleic acids as hardware/software
systems
which allow fast "decision tree" evolution of molecular
replicators, and the
emergence of the "RNA world" - I am not in the position
of responding to
these points and refer readers to Paul Davies' book "The
Fifth Miracle"
(1998) and to subsequent essays.
Wallis states (CCNet 18.12.00) "So spontaneous generation on
earth is no
longer a very healthy hypothesis.". While the concept
of "spontaneous
generation" is best left to the pre-Louis Pasteur history,
does this
statement imply he believes that life has more likely originated
within a
cometary environment than on planetary surfaces? If so, how
does this
accord with Ockham's razor principle, where planetary life is
favoured by
(1) the fact we know it exists on Earth (so far) but todate have
not found
any in meteorites, and (2) the physical and chemical conditions
for life on
Earth, which are only slightly more favourable for life than on
comets - to
say the least ...
The onus of proof is clearly on those who propose panspermia, a
fact which
no amount of downputting of those who question their hypothesis
can deny.
Andrew Glikson
Australian National University
Canberra, ACT, Australia
20.12.00
===================
(11) THE SOLAR FORCING OF GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING
From Timo Niroma <timo.niroma@tilmari.pp.fi>
Dear Benny,
It seems that at least the late Holocene has a weather cycle of
1065 years
and that the cycle is solar driven. The sun's activity, its
varying
magnetosphere intensity, causes global warming and global cooling
with some
25-30 year's delay with accompanying wet and dry spells. The
intervening
variable is the galactic cosmic-ray flux, which intensifies
during quiet
sun.
According to the research led by Bas van Geel of the University
of
Amsterdam, there occurred around 850 BC a sharp rise in the
14C-content of
the atmosphere. Soon there followed an abrupt climate change from
relatively
warm to cooler and wetter conditions.
According to Bas van Geel and his co-researchers Oleg Raspopov,
Johannes van
der Plicht and Hans Renssen this 14C rise was caused by reduced
solar
activity. Besides 14C there is a sharp rise in 10Be at the same
time, a sure
sign of intensified galactic cosmic-ray flux. This results in
increased
cloudiness and precipitation, which cause a reduction in solar
energy
reaching the earth surface. According C. J. E. Schuurmans the
direct
reaction to Sun's changing activity is observed at altitudes
between 5.5 to
12 km.
This rised 14C condition lasted 90 years until 760 BC. This
process was
repeated in minor amount from 400 BC to 310 BC. From about 620 BC
to 400 BC
the 14C content was low which should mean a warming time. Again
this
condition prevailed from 200 BC. The following 415-year warm
phase was a
clear precondition for the prosperity of the Great Roman Empire.
According to Justin Schove (Sunspot cycles, 1983) there was a
maximum
(Gleissberg) cycle in sunspots from 192 AD to 302 AD. I interpret
this to
mean a real super-Maunder containing of 7 Jovian year length spot
cycles
plus a 27 year spotless period. There was an unparalleled crisis
in Roman
Empire from 235 to 284 AD. Barbarian incursions were frequent and
ruinous
between 248 and 268. The political and economical ground of the
mighty Roman
Empire began to collapse. Roman Empire survived a few centuries
still but
200 years later, after Valentinian III in 455, the mighty Roman
Army
dwindled in 20 years to nothing. According to Mike Baillie (pers.
comm.) the
century beginning in 200 AD was very cold based on his
dendrochronological
studies.
Between the cold spells of 850 BC and 400 BC there were about 450
years or
about 220+230 years. This is the maximum length I have counted
for the so
called 200-year cycle.[1] Between the cold spell beginning in
about 230 AD
and the cold spell whose deepness is clearly indicated by the
freezing of
Euphrates in 608 AD there were some 380 years or if we take the
Vandal
invasion's culmination in 439 as a breakpoint, cold times were
there again
for a while, 210+170 years. 170 years is according to my
calculations the
lower limit for the 200-year cycle. [1] Then we have again 220
years for the
next spell which culminated in Nile freezing in 829 AD. At this
time
collapsed also the Lowland Maya society. According to Whitlock
"there is no
trace of the large-scale destruction and fires which would have
marked an
invasion or an earthquake".
After about 865 AD the climate began gradually warm up in a
similar way it
did about 1065 years earlier in about 200 BC. This warm spell
(the Medieval
Maximum) lasted for about 400 years. Between the cold third and
fifth
century (the last blow to the Great Roman Empire), there had been
a small
warmer period. It may be no coincidence that the Classic Maya
blossom began
about 300 AD.
The third series of cold spells during the last 3,000 years began
with sun's
activity going slowly down from about 1250, which eventually was
seen as a
deteriorating wheather in about 1280, again 1065 years since the
previous
global cooling. And again we have an oscillation of warmer and
colder
spells. The Carbon 14 studies gives further cold periods
beginning in 1450
(the Sporer minimum) and in 1645 (the Maunder minimum) both
having their
minimum about 50 years after the beginning. After the Maunder
minimum every
6th decade has been exceptional: 1810 (the Dalton minimum), 1870
(a shaky
decade beginning a slightly colder climate), 1930 (the warmest
decade in
record since about 1100), 1990 (a decade of warm winters and warm
nights).
With this we come right to the point of the debate that has raged
all the
1990's and is still raging or amongst the ordinary people, most
of the
decisionmakers and largely also the scientists has come a
religion-like
dogma, which is not any more questioned. People believe that
there is going
on a global warming, and partly have right, partly wrong. It's
too
complicated here to go to the details. What matters is, that man
has again
taken a role that does not belong to him. He is the generator for
the
supposed global warming. And his vehicle is CO2. Pity. I would
like all
these people to read as a beginning from Nature 7 December 2000
issue the
article "Past climate change. A reduced role for CO2?"
by J. Veizer, Y.
Godderis & L. M. Francois. An important article also appeared
in the
previous Nature of 30 November 2000: "Changes in deep-water
formation during
the Younger Dryas event inferred from 10Be and 14C records."
by Muscheler,
Beer, Wagner and Finkel.
One should ask has Earth cooled the last 15 million years without
a
correlation with CO2? One should ask (assuming that the CO2 can
reliably and
consistently with the Holocene conditions be measured during the
last ice
age), could the causation between CO2 (and also methane) and
general
temperature on Earth go to the other direction than generally
assumed? If
it's true that the amount of the greenhouse gases was half or a
third during
the Younger Dryas compared to preindustrial times in Holocene,
could it be
possible that the rapidly increased biomass caused the amount of
greenhouse
gases grew until a new equilibrium (the forests and oceans
engulfing these
gases causing a negative feedback process) was achieved. Or was
it the
hunter-gatherer's camp-fires? (The last question is a serious
joke with
repercussions to today's hysteria.) Or what caused this very
rapid positive
feedback process 11,600 years ago?
Similarly, if we now have increased the amount of CO2 in
atmosphere by 10,
20, 30 per cent during the last century, why did the 1930's had
the warmest
summers during the 20th century? What caused the cold years in
1960's? Why
has the height of the ocean surfaces not increased? Why are the
changes in
temperatures smaller during the 20th century than let's say 1000
to 1500
years ago? See for example the Helsinki July temperatures during
the past
160 years. [2]
This is not to say that we today live in general a warm period,
in
particular the beginning of the 400-year warm period. Does it
reach the
"Greenland warmth" in the middle of the Medieval
Maximum from 950 to 1150,
approximately, but at least it is in agreement with the warm
pulses of 200
BC to 200 AD and from 865 to 1265 AD. Beginning in about 1930 it
should
reach to the year 2330 and then turn to a global cooling (unless
Milankowicz
reasons don't interrupt it).
Regards
Timo Niroma
[1] http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html
[2] http://www.tilmari.pp.fi/tilmari5.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.