CCNet
Editor: Benny Peiser Faculty
of Science, Liverpool John Moores University Tel:- +44 (0)151 231 4338
b.j.peiser@ljmu.ac.uk |
CCNet
58/06 - 4 April 2006
PLANETARY PROTECTION
ESA'S ASTEROID DEFLECTION
MISSION MAY LAUNCH IN 2011
Asteroids
don't hit the Earth often, but when they do, the results can be catastrophic.
The European Space Agency is working on several approaches to minimize the
chances we'll make a close encounter with an asteroid. A new mission, called
Don Quijote, will launch in 2011 and slam an impactor probe into an asteroid to
see what happens. An orbiter spacecraft will remain in orbit around the
asteroid and continue to study the aftereffects of the impact. There are now
three European teams working on preliminary studies for the potential mission.
--Universe Today, 3 April 2006
Science
is, in other words, segueing back into a structure where once again authority,
not observation, is the basis of the exercise of power and establishment of
truth by the elite. But the authority in this new model is not derived from
sacred texts; rather it is derived from legitimate practice of scientific
method in the scientific domain, extended into non-scientific domains. Why is
this nightmare science? Precisely because it raises an internal contradiction
with which science cannot cope. In an age defined by the scientific worldview,
which is the source of the primacy of the scientific discourse, science cannot
demand privilege outside its domain based not on method, but on authority, for
in doing so it undermines the zeitgeist that gives it validity. When demanding
the Kyoto Treaty as scientists, it is themselves, not their opponents, that they
attack.
--Brad Allenby, GreenBiz, April 2006
Not
being native to these isles, I used to have trouble understanding what people
meant by the word drought. "It's terribly worrying, isn't it, the
drought?" they would say. Perhaps, I thought to myself, they're talking
about some obscure livestock ailment, or maybe they just pronounce
"draft" funny. But I know they can't be talking about that other
thing, the not having enough water thing, because it's raining frigging
sideways.
--Tim Dowling, The Guardian, 4 April
2006
(1) DON
QUIJOTE: ESA'S ASTEROID DEFLECTION MISSION MAY LAUNCH IN 2011
Universe Today, 3 April 2006
(2) NASA
RESURRECTS MISSION TO ASTEROIDS
Associated Press, 2 April 2006
(3)
REPRESENTATIONS OF HALLEY’S COMET IN APRIL 1066 A.D. FOUND IN THE BAYEAUX
TAPESTRY AND OTHER CONTEMPORARY WRITTEN
ACCOUNTS. LPSC, 2006
J. A. Greenspon et al.
(4)
REFERENCES TO HISTORICAL COMETS FROM 497 A.D. TO 1402 A.D. IN ENGLISH
MANUSCRIPTS. LPSC, 2006
E. G. Mardon & A. A.. Mardon
(5)
NIGHTMARE SCIENCE
Brad Allenby, GreenBiz, April 2006
(6)
LOSING BET ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 3 April 2006
(7) K/T
CONTROVERSY: SPHERULES ARE ALTERED AND USELESS FOR STUDY
Jan Smit <jansmit2@mac.com>
(8) RE:
NEW STUDY: "K/T IRIDIUM NOT DUE TO CHICXULUB IMPACT"
Max Wallis <wallismk@Cardiff.ac.uk>
(9) RE:
SCALARS, VECTORS, SEX & JON RICHFIELD
Russell Schweickart <rs@well.com>
(10)
SCALAR FUNCTIONS OF VECTOR PARAMETERS AND..
Hermann Burchard <burchar@math.okstate.edu>
(11)
PATRICIA HEWITT, THE NHS AND A COLD WINTER
Tom Addiscott
<tom.addiscott@ukf.net>
(12) A
CLIMATE SCEPTIC IN BEIJING
Vincent Gray
<vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>
(13)
LETTERS DEBATE IN THE INDEPENDENT
Neil Craig <CrgN143@aol.com>
(14)
WHO'S YOUR POLLUTER NOW?
Tim Ball <timothyball@shaw.ca>
(15)
CALLING FOR ECO-FRIENDLY GENOCIDE?
Robert Waldrop <bwaldrop@cox.net>
(16) AND
FINALLY: THIS HAS TO BE THE WETTEST DROUGHT YET
Tim Dowling, The Guardian, 4 April 2006
(1) DON QUIJOTE: ESA'S
ASTEROID DEFLECTION MISSION MAY LAUNCH IN 2011
Universe Today, 3 April 2006
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/past_treasure_threat.html?342006
Quijote Will Reach Out and
Impact an Asteroid
Mon, 03 Apr 2006 - Asteroids
don't hit the Earth often, but when they do, the results can be catastrophic.
The European Space Agency is working on several approaches to minimize the
chances we'll make a close encounter with an asteroid. A new mission, called
Don Quijote, will launch in 2011 and slam an impactor probe into an asteroid to
see what happens. An orbiter spacecraft will remain in orbit around the asteroid
and continue to study the aftereffects of the impact. There are now three
European teams working on preliminary studies for the potential mission.
If a large asteroid such as
the recently identified 2004 VD17 - about 500 m in diameter with a mass of
nearly 1000 million tonnes - collides with the Earth it could spell disaster
for much of our planet. As part of ESA's Near-Earth Object deflecting mission
Don Quijote, three teams of European industries are now carrying out studies on
how to prevent this.
ESA has been addressing the
problem of how to prevent large Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) from colliding with
the Earth for some time. In 1996 the Council of Europe called for the Agency to
take action as part of a "long-term global strategy for remedies against
possible impacts". Recommendations from other international organisations,
including the UN and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), soon followed.
In response to these and
other calls, ESA commissioned a number of threat evaluation and mission studies
through its General Studies Programme (GSP). In July 2004 the preliminary phase
was completed when a panel of experts appointed by ESA recommended giving the
Don Quijote asteroid-deflecting mission concept maximum priority for
implementation.
Now it is time for industry
to put forward their best design solutions for the mission.
Following an invitation to
tender and the subsequent evaluation process, three industrial teams have been
awarded a contract to carry out the mission phase-A studies:
- a team with Alcatel Alenia
Space as prime contractor includes subcontractors and consultants from across
Europe and Canada; Alcatel Alenia Space developed the Huygens Titan probe and
is currently working on the ExoMars mission
- a consortium led by EADS
Astrium, which includes Deimos Space from Spain and consultants from several
European countries, brings their experience of working on the design of many
successful ESA interplanetary missions such as Rosetta, Mars and Venus Express
- a team led by QinetiQ
(UK), which includes companies and partners in Sweden and Belgium, draws on
their expertise in mini and micro satellites including ESA's SMART-1 and Proba
projects
This month the three teams
began work and a critical milestone will take place in October when the studies
will be reviewed by ESA with the support of an international panel of experts.
The results of this phase will be available next year.
The risk is still small
however, and may decrease even further when new observations are carried out.
Still, if this or any other similar-sized object, such as 99942 Apophis, an
asteroid that will come close enough to the Earth in 2029 to be visible to the
naked eye, collided with our planet the energy released could be equivalent to
a significant fraction of the world's nuclear arsenal, resulting in devastation
across national borders.
Luckily, impacts with very
large asteroids are uncommon, although impacts with smaller asteroids are less
unlikely and remote in time. In 1908 an asteroid that exploded over Siberia
devastated an unpopulated forest area of more than 2000 km2; had it arrived
just a few hours later, Saint Petersburg or London could have been hit instead.
Asteroids are a part of our
planet's history. As anyone visiting the Barringer Meteor Crater in Arizona,
USA or aiming a small telescope at the Moon can tell, there is plenty of
evidence that the Earth and its cosmic neighbourhood passed through a period of
heavy asteroid bombardment. On the Earth alone the remains of more than 160
impacts have been identified, some as notorious as the Chicxulub crater located
in Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula, believed to be a trace of the asteroid that
caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Collisions have shaped the
history of our Solar System. Because asteroids and comets are remnants of the
turbulent period in which the planets were formed, they are in fact similar to
'time capsules' and carry a pristine record of those early days. By studying
these objects it is possible to learn more about the evolution of our Solar
System as well as 'hints' about the origins of life on Earth.
Comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is one of these primitive building blocks and will be
visited by ESA's Rosetta spacecraft in 2014, as a part of a very ambitious
mission - the first ever to land on a comet. Rosetta will also visit two main
belt asteroids (Steins and Lutetia) on its way to comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The mission will help us to understand if life on
Earth began with the help of materials such as water and organisms brought to
our planet by 'comet seeding'.
ESA's Science programme is
already looking at future challenges, and its Cosmic Vision 2015-2025 plan has
identified an asteroid surface sample return as one of the key developments
needed to further our understanding of the history and composition of our Solar
System.
Asteroids and comets are
fascinating objects that can give or take life on a planetary scale. Experts
around the world are putting all their energy and enthusiasm into deciphering
the mysteries they carry within them.
With an early launch
provisionally scheduled for 2011, Don Quijote will serve as a 'technological
scout' not only to mitigate the chance of the Earth being hit by a large NEO
but also for the ambitious journeys to explore our solar system that ESA will
continue to embark upon. The studies now being carried out by European industry
will bring the Don Quijote test mission one step nearer.
Original Source: ESA Portal
(http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMC43NFGLE_index_0.html)
(2) NASA RESURRECTS MISSION
TO ASTEROIDS
Associated Press, 2 April
2006
LOS ANGELES – Just weeks
after NASA killed a spacecraft mission to two of the solar system's largest
asteroids, the space agency reversed course and gave the green light for a 2007
launch.
The Dawn spacecraft is
expected to launch in July 2007 on a nine-year voyage to the asteroids Ceres
and Vesta, which reside in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The
mission's cost was originally capped at $373 million, but NASA decided to pony
up an extra $73 million needed to launch Dawn. NASA had axed the Dawn project
last month, citing cost overruns and technical issues. But it decided to take a
second look after the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which managed the mission,
made an appeal.
NASA Associate Administrator
Rex Geveden, who chaired the review panel, said the Dawn team had made
significant progress in addressing the technical problems and was confident the
mission would succeed.
"There are always
pretty tall challenges, and it looks like Dawn is prepared to take those on and
beat them," Mr. Geveden said.
Dawn was supposed to lift
off in June on a nine-year voyage to the asteroids Ceres and Vesta, which
reside in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. But NASA ordered a
stand down last fall amid budget concerns and problems with the spacecraft's xenon
fuel tanks, which ruptured during testing.
The about-face means Dawn is
now scheduled to launch in July 2007.
The mission's cost was
originally capped at $373 million, but NASA decided to pony up an extra $73
million needed to launch Dawn. Scrapping the program at this point would cost
an extra $14 million for such expenses as terminating contracts; NASA has
already spent about $257 million on the project.
"I'm terribly excited.
We're all jumping up and down," said Lucy McFadden, a Dawn team member from
the University of Maryland. "I'm pleased that NASA hasn't given up on
science altogether."
Powered by a xenon ion
engine, Dawn would be the first spacecraft to circle Ceres and Vesta. It will
spend several months orbiting each asteroid, photographing the surface and
studying the interior composition, density and magnetism.
Ceres and Vesta are believed
to have formed in different parts of the solar system about 4.5 billion years
ago. Studying them could provide clues to how the sun and planets formed.
Dawn's cancellation came at
a precarious time at NASA, which had been forced to cut or delay several
science projects to help pay for the development of new manned vehicles to
return to the moon next decade.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
director Charles Elachi appealed the cancellation, saying the technical
problems were either fixed or would be corrected in time for a liftoff next
year.
Copyright 2006, AP
(3) REPRESENTATIONS OF
HALLEY’S COMET IN APRIL 1066 A.D. FOUND IN THE BAYEAUX TAPESTRY AND OTHER CONTEMPORARY
WRITTEN ACCOUNTS. LPSC, 2006
J. A. Greenspon1, A. A.
Mardon2, E. G. Mardon3; 1StarGate Research (President, 3700 Quartz Canyon, #
41, Riverside, California, USA. 92509-1115 Email:
jon.a.greenspon@stargateresearch.com), 2Antarctic Institute of Canada, Adjunct
Faculty AMU/APUS & Akamai University (Director, PO Box 1223, Main Post
Office, Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA. T5J 2M4. E-mail: amardon@shaw.ca),
3Antarctic Institute of Canada(Board Member, PO Box 1223, Main Post Office,
Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA. T5J 2M4. E-mail: amardon@shaw.ca),
Introduction: This Medieval
embroidery - incorrectly called tapestry is a band of linen - 231 feet long and
more than 19 inches wide. A portion of it is missing including the final
portion. It depicts the Norman Conquest of England leading up to the Battle of
Hastings in 1066 A.D. in which Harold Godwin king of England was killed.
It is a remarkable work of
art and important as a source of mid-11th Century history. Legend states that
the Bayeaux Tapestry was made by Queen Matilda William of Normandy with the
help of the ladies of his court. It contains 70 scenes and various Latin words.
Scene 31 of the Bayeaux Tapestry states in Latin: “ISTIMIRANT STELLAE” -
“Marveling at the star.”
The six men are in the scene
pointing to the comet in the sky with signs of fear. On the border above is a
drawing of a comet moving from left to right. The comet appears as a round ball
of red with white points and a burning rake like object tail being drawn from
the ball. Scene 32 is of King Harold on his throne bending towards a man who
appears a soothsayer or an interpreter of dreams.
On the lower border is a
picture of ghostly empty vessels floating on a calm sea with only black thread.
It is only a sketch that is why it is taken as a dream. It is worth noting that
Odo Bishop of Bayeaux or later Earl of Kent was a half brother of William and
took a leading part in the Hastings Campaign and conquest of England. Odo a
warrior bishop was born c. 1033 A.D. and died in Sicily in 1097 A.D. He
probably commissioned the famous Bayeaux Tapestry for the dedication of his new
cathedral Notre Dame in the city of Bayeaux in 1077 A.D. It is said that the
tapestry was hung around inside the church once a year on a special feast day
for centuries.
In conclusion this is the
first pictorial record of a comet. The first time that it is mentioned in
literature outside of the Chronicles was in 1476 A.D. So we can date the comet
because of the battle of Hastings. The comet appeared in April 1066 A.D. for almost
two weeks. By day and by night. It was very bright. [...]
Conclusion: The breadth of
separate references to the appearance of Halley’s Comet in 1066 A.D. in England
indicated that the comets appearance was an important historical event and
indicates a serious contemporary interest in astronomy. It indicates that more
effort should be directed in the research and recovery of historical references
to astronomical events such as comets or as sometimes referred to as ‘star.’
Their could be more historical references to comets that have long periods that
we have as yet to see appear again in the 21st Century or some time in the far
future.
(4) REFERENCES TO HISTORICAL
COMETS FROM 497 A.D. TO 1402 A.D. IN ENGLISH MANUSCRIPTS. LPSC, 2006
E. G. Mardon1 & A. A..
Mardon2, 1Antarctic Institute of Canada(Board Member, Post Office Box 1223,
Main Post Office, Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA. T5J 2M4. E-mail: amardon@shaw.ca
), 2Antarctic Institute of Canada(Director, Post Office Box 1223, Main Post
Office, Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA. T5J 2M4. E-mail: amardon@shaw.ca ).
Introduction: The following
is a compilation of the cometary references found in English Medieval
Manuscripts from the 5th Century to the 14th Century AD.
(5) NIGHTMARE SCIENCE
GreenBiz, April 2006
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=30446
By Brad Allenby
The philosopher Alvin
Gouldner entitled Chapter 13 of his classic study The Two Marxisms,
"Nightmare Marxism," observing that every discourse contains within
it alternatives that suborn its expressed intent -- its nightmare side. For
Marxism, there were two nightmares: the first that Marx's theory was, despite
its claim to scientific legitimacy, just another utopian project; the second
that, despite his theoretical analysis, it would turn out that the bourgeoisie
were right all along, and that private property was, indeed, the basis of
civilization. Should these nightmares be right, Marxism would not be the path to
an enlightened future, but to despotism -- as, in fact, it was in practice.
What, then, are the
nightmares of the scientific discourse or, more precisely, the environmental
science discourse? Surely a major one is that, despite the claim of the
scientific discourse to primacy in creating a valid understanding of the world,
the reality is that the postmodernist critique is right, and science is no more
than another normative discourse, of no greater ontological value than any
other.
Evaluating the potential for
this nightmare science scenario is tricky, but a few observations are possible.
To begin with, it is useful to recall perhaps the principal way science
distinguishes itself from other discourses: the reliance on discovery of facts
through observation, and validation of theory through test and falsification -
in short, the scientific method. This procedure evolved in Western Europe in
contrast to the medieval mechanism for establishing truth, which was reference
to authority, in the form of the Church Fathers, Aristotle, or other accepted
texts. The seismic shift in worldview that a change from authority to
observation as source of truth induces is difficult to appreciate in hindsight,
but there is little question that it was a seminal step in the rise of the West
and the creation of modernity.
But it is precisely the
strength of this core characteristic of the scientific discourse that creates
the potential for nightmare science. The nightmare arises in this way. We have,
as scientists, established the validity of science through adoption of a
process that institutionalizes observation, and thus grants us privileged
access to truth, at least within the domains of physical reality. In doing so,
we have destroyed authority as the source of privileged knowledge -- and,
concomitantly, assumed much of the power that used to reside in the old elite
(e.g., the Church).
But now suppose that
scientists become increasingly concerned with certain environmental phenomenon
-- say, loss of biodiversity, or climate change. They thus not only report the
results of the practice of the scientific method, but, in part doubting the
ability of the public to recognize the potential severity of the issues as
scientists see them, become active as scientists in crafting and demanding
particular responses, such as the Kyoto Treaty. These responses, notably,
extend significantly beyond the purely environmental domain, into policies
involving economic development, technology deployment, quality of life in many
countries, and the like.
In short, the elite that has
been created by practice of the scientific method uses the concomitant power
not just to express the results of particular research initiatives, but to
create, support, and implement policy responses affecting many non-scientific
communities and intellectual domains in myriad ways. In doing so, they are not
exercising expertise in these non-scientific domains, but rather transforming
their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific
domains. Science is, in other words, segueing back into a structure where once
again authority, not observation, is the basis of the exercise of power and
establishment of truth by the elite. But the authority in this new model is not
derived from sacred texts; rather it is derived from legitimate practice of
scientific method in the scientific domain, extended into non-scientific
domains. Note that this does not imply that scientists cannot, or should not,
as individuals participate in public debate; only that if they do so cloaked in
the privilege that the scientific discourse gives them they raise from the dead
the specter of authority as truth.
Why is this nightmare
science? Precisely because it raises an internal contradiction with which
science cannot cope. In an age defined by the scientific worldview, which is
the source of the primacy of the scientific discourse, science cannot demand
privilege outside its domain based not on method, but on authority, for in
doing so it undermines the zeitgeist that gives it validity. When demanding the
Kyoto Treaty as scientists, it is themselves, not their opponents, that they
attack.
-------
Brad Allenby is professor of
civil and environmental engineering at Arizona State University, a fellow at the
University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business, and previously was
AT&T's vice president of environment, health, and safety.
Copyright 2006, GreenBiz
(6) LOSING BET ON CLIMATE
CHANGE
Reason Online, 3 April 2006
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb040306.shtml
Temperatures are rising—what
now?
Ronald Bailey
Patrick Michaels, a
University of Virginia climatologist, Cato Institute scholar, and long-time
climate change skeptic, offered a bet back in 1998 that the globe's average
temperatures would decline over the next decade. In 1998, an unusually powerful
El Niño off the coast of South America had boosted the globe's average
temperatures by half of a degree Celsius above seasonal norms. In his World
Climate Report, Michaels proposed:
If we were of a betting sort (and there are some nasty
rumors going around that we
are), we would be willing to wager that the 10-year period
beginning in January 1998
and extending through December 2007 will show a
statistically significant downward
trend in the monthly satellite record of global
temperatures. Surely such a wager
should sound interesting to those who think the planetary
temperature will increase
several tenths of a
degree during that period. No reasonable offers refused...
As far as I know, none of
the climatologists who are concerned about dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the earth's climate took Michaels up on his bet. If they had, they could
have made a bundle. The satellite record that Michaels was using as his
baseline is put together by University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH)
climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer. The recently corrected UAH dataset
finds that since 1978, global average temperatures have been going up at the
rate of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. This increase is at the low end of
climate computer model projections. Another group, Remote Sensing Systems,
applying different adjustments to the satellite data, finds that the lower part
of the earth's atmosphere is warming at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per
decade.
In any case, Christy and
Spencer observed "a global average temperature that was three-tenths of a
degree Celsius (0.54º Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, 2005 tied with
2002 as the second warmest year in the past 27." They added that,
according to their data, "the five years from 2001 through 2005 have been
five of the six warmest years in the 27-year satellite global temperature
record." Relying on surface temperature records, climatologist James
Hansen, who heads up NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New
York City, declared that 2005 was the warmest year on record, but even using
GISS data, last year was not warmer by much than 1998.
So I asked Michaels by email
what he thought of his bet now. Michaels responded, "Technically we lose
the bet. But, there were some rather substantial adjustments that were made to
the original data that we could not have anticipated at the time of the wager.
It's not the same data any more. Also, note that there is surely no
statistically significant warming trend in the monthly MSU data since
1998." By selecting 1998, with its record high temperatures, as the bet's
beginning point, Michaels was giving himself a major advantage over any
potential takers. And it seems to me that unless Michaels had cagily qualified
his reliance on the satellite dataset, his bet would have had to stand or fall
on it, no matter what later adjustments were made to it.
In any case, I checked with
Christy and Roy via email and they told me that Michaels is correct. "The
trend I get using the 85S-85N (latitude) values is +0.032 degrees Celsius per
decade for January 1998 to February 2006. This is not significantly different
from zero at all," replied Christy. Still it is not a "statistically
significant downward trend in the monthly satellite record of global
temperatures." Spencer added, "It is also significant that we haven't
had a year as warm as 1998 since then, including 2005."
So what about the future?
According to an article last October, Michaels seems unlikely to offer another
bet on lower temperatures. "We already know that the world is warming and
that it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future (with or without any
greenhouse gas emission controls)," wrote Michaels. "Record
temperatures will continue to be set every couple of years or so."
The question of how much
danger the trend toward higher average global temperatures poses is still open,
but that the earth's temperature is going up is not. The debate now is how bad
it might get. Gregory Benford offered some clever ideas in Reason for cooling
down the planet if research eventually indicates that future warming could
become truly troublesome.
Disclosure: I am an adjunct
scholar at the Cato Institute (which, as it was explained to me when I was
asked to be one, means that I don't get paid anything, but that they can use my
name for media and fundraising purposes). And not surprisingly, ideological
environmentalists don't like or trust me.
Ronald Bailey is Reason's
science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral
Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.
Copyright 2006, Reason
========= LETTERS ==========
(7) K/T CONTROVERSY:
SPHERULES ARE ALTERED AND USELESS FOR STUDY
Jan Smit
<jansmit2@mac.com>
Dear Benny,
I also voice my strong
doubts about Hartings study (see his abstract below).
Knowing the locations in the
USA and Mexico of the spherules studied by Harting very well, I have very
strong doubts about the validity of Hartings analyses.
Our own analyses of those
spherules (in conjunction with analyses performed by Philippe Claeys from
Belgium) show that almost invariably (except in Haiti), those spherules are
completely altered to cryptocrystalline or clay (smectite) material. The crux
of the matter lies in the analyses themselves, and in those Harting makes a
basic error: He did not publish in his abstract the oxyde totals of the
microprobe analyses.
I added up Hartings oxide
results from his one analysis from Texas (from his GSA abstract):
50.81
0.33
18.34
4.99
0.02
3.42
3.03
0.11
1.31
-----
82.36% total
This clearly shows that
Hartings so called "glass"
contains about 18% of water!
The original glass analyses
from the pure glass from Haiti always show 100% totals, because the glass
contains almost no water. As soon as the analyses show totals of <98%, we
have tossed them out from any conclusions because the glass had to be altered.
Analyses from other spherules ( in Mexico and Texas) have totals between 80 and
97%, indicating a water content between 2 and 20%.
That water is not added to
the glass during the impact melting, but during the later, diagenetic
alteration, together with addition or removal of an unknown amount of the
original elements in the glass.
So Hartings analyses are
overinterpreted with respect to its origin from Chicxulub, you simply cannot
say whether there is a connection with Chicxulub basement rocks or not.
As for his other conclusions
such as multiple layering of ejecta: these are all from older data that have
been questioned before
(see:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/CCNet-K-T-Schulte-2006.htm)
Also in the case of the new
Texas cores: multiple ejecta layering is probably caused by sedimentary
processes such as differential settling through the water column (separation of
the mm sized spherules from micron sized iridium particles), multiple tsunami influxes
and/or slumping and sediment displacements, and are not due to multiple
impacts.
Sincerely,
Jan Smit
Prof. Dr. J. Smit
Sedimentology group
Vrije Universiteit
de Boelelaan 1085
1081HV Amsterdam
(jan.smit@falw.vu.nl)
(GSA abstract by Harting:) GEOCHEMICAL
CHARACTERISATION OF CHICXULUB-IMPACT EJECTA - NEW CONSTRAINS FROM THE GULF OF
MEXICO AND THE CARIBBEAN
HARTING, Markus, Faculty of
Geosciences, Department of Earthsciences, Budapestlaan, P.O. Box 80021, Utrecht
3508 TA Netherlands, m.harting@geo.uu.nl
Glass spherule ejecta
deposits in various sections from NE-Mexico,Texas, Guatemala, Belize, and Haiti
have been investigated by electron microprobe, backscatter-electron-, scanning
electron-, and transmission electron microscopy, in order to characterize the
geochemistry of the ejecta, strewn-field mixing, alteration, fractionation
within the strewn field, and distribution mechanisms. Earlier investigations
include main and trace elements (Harting, 2004), isotope analyses (Kettrup,
2002) and litho- and biostratigraphic Investigations (Keller et al., 2003,
2004). In NE-Mexico and Texas, multiple ejecta layers are exposed up to 10 m
below the K/T-boundary, with the oldest and original ejecta deposit predating
the K/T boundary by about 300,000 years. In Texas, preliminary analyses
suggests that the original ejecta, now a higly altered smectite layer, is also
interbedded in late Maastrichtian clay. In Guatemala, Belize and Haiti the
spherule layers are generally found above the K/T boundary in the early Danian
and apparently eroded and reworked from the older original deposit. Geochemical
investigations at all these localities reveal Chicxulub impact glass as the
origin for all glass spherule ejecta layers. Although some spherules are
altered, most remain glass particles are unaltered. Both geochemical and
petrological features are well preserved and permit correlation to Chicxulub
basement rocks, e.g. granites, gneisses, amphibolites and impact meltrocks.
Several distinct silicic phases (Al-Fe-rich glasses) are observed. The range of
geochemical compositions for NE-Mexico ejecta is: SiO2: 45-61, TiO: 0.1-0.6,
Al2O3: 11-22, FeO: 2-14, MnO: 0-0.07, MgO: 2-11, CaO: 1-9, Na2O: 0-3, K2O:
0.2-4. The mean geochemical composition for Texas impact glass falls well
within this range with SiO2: 50.81, TiO2: 0.33, Al2O3: 18.34, FeO: 4.99, MnO:
0.02, MgO: 3.42, CaO: 3.03, Na2O: 0.11 and for K2O: 1.31. These characteristics
strongly imply an ejecta origin from mafic and felsic rocks of the
Chicxulub-basement. However, the occurrence of different glass phases in the
upper (reworked) ejecta layers of NE Mexico strongly suggests post-sedimentary
mixing and/or fractionation of the ejecta. In contrast, the stratigraphically
oldest ejecta layer (300,000 yrs pre-K/T) is geochemically more uniform, which
reflects the absence of erosion, mixing and transport.
(8) RE: NEW STUDY: "K/T
IRIDIUM NOT DUE TO CHICXULUB IMPACT"
Max Wallis
<wallismk@Cardiff.ac.uk>
The idea that terrestrial
iridium (Ir) comes from extraterrestrial dust has a long pedigree. So Harting's
proposal to explain the KT iridium layer this way, rather than from the single
Chicxulub impact (CCNet 30 March) is far from novel.
It's well established that
cosmic dust is the source of Ir traces in antarctic ices. And the enhanced
level throughout several metres of KT strata has long been interpreted as
resulting from extraterrestrial dust.
The boundary strata at
Stevns Klint show 10-fold enhanced levels from ~70 kyr prior to the striking rise
by several hundred times over a time less than a few kyr (Zhao &
Bada).
Just compare these scales
with those expected from interstellar dust clouds. The smallest members of dark
cloud complexes are about 3 pc across and we might encounter one every few
hundred Myr on Bill Napier's estimates (2004). At the highest plausible
relative speed of 30 km/s, the crossing time is 100 kyr.
Thus the extended Ir
enhancement might be explained as a dark cloud. But not a highly condensed core
of 1% of the size. The full Ir profile makes the cloud model quite implausible.
Weakly gravitating dust clouds cannot support a core a few thousand AU in size.
As Wickramasinghe and I
proposed in 1995, the scenario of a giant fragmenting comet (Napier &
Clube) of which a major fragment was the KT impactor is the only current
explanation for both the extended trace and the sharp peak of Iridium.
References:
Napier & Clube, Nature 282, 455 (1979)
Wickramasinghe & Wallis, Earth Moon
Planets 71, 461 (1995)
W M Napier, Mon. Not. Roy Astro Soc 348, 46
(2004)
Zhao & Bada, Nature 339, 463 (1989)
------------------------
Max Wallis wallismk@cf.ac.uk
Cardiff Centre for
Astrobiology tel. 029 2087 6436
2 North Road fax 029
2087 6424
Cardiff University CF10
2DY
(9) RE: SCALARS, VECTORS,
SEX & JON RICHFIELD
Russell Schweickart
<rs@well.com>
Benny:
Jon, in his comment
yesterday on the NEO scale issue said, in part, "... the greater the scale
of the threat, the longer in advance we are likely to take a practical interest
in it, and the lower the probability of a collision event at first. So, while
we might not be too worried about the trajectory of a boulder that probably
will miss us in a century, we might be very interested in a mountain with the
same lead time and probability. Such a long time in advance we are very
unlikely to have much idea of where or even whether it will strike. In fact I
reckon that by the time when we can tell that it would be a good idea to vacate
India rather than China, let alone London rather than Den Haag, it would be too
late for concerned parties to start quibbling about their respective
investments."
2004VD17 arguably falls into
the "category" Jon refers to here.
And, while our analysis is to date only preliminary, it appears that a
Gravity Tractor mission to VD17, done within 15 years, could serve multiple
purposes including showing some responsibility for our g-g-g-grandchildren.
Because VD17 passes through
3 gravitational encounters with Earth prior to the potential 2102 impact
(current probability 1 in 1600) it would take a delta-V of only ~5 microns/sec
to cause it to miss the Earth if done by about 2020. Interestingly this appears
to be possible with a 1000 kg spacecraft, powered by solar electric propulsion
(SEP, using existing ion engines powered by solar arrays) and launched on an
existing Atlas V(551).
So, were we wise folk we
might just consider launching a NEO research mission (NOT a science mission and
therefore NOT competing with SCIENCE $) to VD17. When we get there we first fly formation with it and (due to the
active transponder aboard) "collapse" the error ellipse and see if
the Earth is still within it. If not (very likely the case) we proceed with our
planned NEO/natural hazard research mission. Alternatively if the Earth is
still within the error ellipse we then "tow" the asteroid for about 6
months using our spacecraft as a gravity tractor and do our g-g-g-grandchildren
a BIG favor. We could probably still do most of the research as well.
Will they have better
systems and be able to do it themselves (if needed)? Sure... but don't we need to learn about NEOs a bit more
anyway? And doesn't it make sense that
if, in the process of doing needed research we find the asteroid is likely to
hit in 2101, we can test our gravity tractor AND save them the nasty challenge
of a deflection that would require 1000-10,000 times greater delta-V to avoid
devastation?
Is there a scalar or vector
or color value that can easily classify this challenge/opportunity? I doubt it.
I'll bet we've just got to look at each case and respond sensibly to its
unique offerings.
Rusty
---<>---
---<>--- ---<>--- ---<===>--- ---<>--- ---<>---
---<>---
Russell L. Schweickart
Chairman, B612 Foundation
125 Red Hill Circle phone: 415-435-8234
Tiburon, CA 94920 fax: 415-789-9016
rs@well.com www.B612Foundation.org
(10) SCALAR FUNCTIONS OF
VECTOR PARAMETERS AND..
Hermann Burchard
<burchar@math.okstate.edu>
Dear Benny,
Jon Richfield writes:
"[...]boiling down of data for the sake of simplicity and
manageability
implies the forfeiture of information, [...]"
Actually, a (not very
useful) theorem of Georg Cantor implies that a domain in d-dimensional space
can be mapped 1-to-1 to the real numbers (the 1-dimensional number line).
Later, Jon also states
"After all, hands up everyone who would wish to face the
advent of the
next dino-killer!"
But,... no more dinos hence
no more dino-killers (sorry, my chance in life to be a smart alec).
Cheers,
Hermann
(11) PATRICIA HEWITT, THE
NHS AND A COLD WINTER
Tom Addiscott
<tom.addiscott@ukf.net>
Benny,
I may have been imagining
it, but I'm pretty sure I heard [UK health minister] Patricia Hewitt say of the
recent problems in the health service that it had been the coldest winter for 40
years. How odd that this fact does not seem to have emerged in climatological
circles! Now if it had been the warmest winter for 40 years.....
Tom Addiscott
============
(12) A CLIMATE SCEPTIC IN
BEIJING
Vincent Gray
<vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz>
Dear Benny
From March 2nd to March 15th
I was a Visiting Scholar at the Beijing Climate Center. It is situated in the
midst of a vast complex comprising the Chinese Meteorological Service in the
North West of Beijing, just North of the zoo. The buildings are large, modern and impressive, and it is evident
that the whole service commands considerable prestige both locally and
internationally..
I and my wife were supplied
with a comfortable two-bedroom flat with new furniture and furnishings, which
included fridge, phone, TV, microwave and kitchen, An exceedingly inexpensive
restaurant and local shops were close.
I was welcomed by the
Director General of the Beijing Climate Center, Dr Wenjie Dong, who had
evidently been reading my material. I was asked to give three lectures over the
fortnight which were received by an appreciative audience of fifty (for the
first) to twenty five (for the third). The final banquet was chaired by the
Vice-Director of the Beijing Meteorological Administration, Mr Xu Xiaofeng, who
subsequently appeared on TV on behalf of World Meteorological Day.
I was introduced to several
staff members and two of them gave me their recent reprints, in English, from
Acta Meteorologica Sinica.
The most interesting of
these serves to indicate how their opinions are evolving.. It was
ZHOU Zongci, DING Yihui, LUO
Yong, and WANG Shaowu, "Recent
Studies on Attributions of Climate Change in China" , Acta Meteorologica
Sinica 2005, Vol 19, 389-400.
You may be aware that when
annual mean surface temperatures for the continental USA are subjected to a
comprehensive correction procedure called "Homogeneity Adjustment"
the resulting sequence shows only very modest overall warming (less than 1°C)
for the period 1900 to 2000. They point out that such a comprehensive
adjustment is not possible anywhere else in the world because nobody else has
the large number of stations and reliable records for comparison purposes.
We also know (apart from
people like Kevin Trenberth) that the published global surface record is biased
upwards, as shown by recent statistical studies by McKitrick and Michaels (
Climate Research 2004 26 159-173, for
land-based data) and Christy, Parker et al (Geophysical Research Letters 2001
28, 183-186, for sea-surface temperatures)
Now, Zhou et al have carried
out a "homogeneity adjustment" on weather station measurements for
China from 1900 to 1998.for temperature and precipitation. The corrected
temperature showed a fluctuating behaviour with a peak in 1943 and a similar
figure in 1998. No evidence of significant "global warming". Please
note that this adjusted record has been endorsed by Phil Jones of the UK Hadley
Centre.
On top of that, they have
identified a large number of natural events which have influenced annual
fluctuations. They conclude:
"The signals produced
by the human activities such as greenhouse gases and "brown clouds"
likely play the role for the patterns. But the physical feedbacks and
mechanisms still keep ambiguous and vague. More researches should be carried
out in future to solve this issue"
It is evident that if
comprehensive "homogeneity adjustment" could be carried out for the
whole of the global surface record there would be little remaining "global
warming" which could be attributed to the influence of greenhouse gas
increases.
It might also be noted that
the second author of this paper, DING Yihui, was one of the eight Chief Editors
of "Climate Change 2001, and he is Co-Chair of Working Group I of the
IPCC.
Cheers
Vincent Gray
75 Silverstream Road
Crofton Downs
Wellington 6004
New Zealand
Phone/Fax 064 4 9735939
"It's not the things
you don't know that fool you.
It's the things you do know
that aint so"
Josh Billings
(13) LETTERS DEBATE IN THE
INDEPENDENT
Neil Craig
<CrgN143@aol.com>
Having written letters to a
number of newspapers over the years on nuclear power, windmills etc & to be
fair, having had one published in the Independent (most of them being direct
replies to previous letters which went unanswered), I think Professor Carter's
hope that the paper's "editors are not biasing the selection of letters
overly" may explain the reason why what appears to be public opionion so
strongly represents the Luddite view.
Opinion polls consistently
show that while the public, if asked, will genuflect towards the importance of
global warming, windmills, not eating salt etc, when given a list of important
issues rate GW last on any list. This suggests they do not take the scare
stories very seriously & the problem is merely that the sceptic views do
not get reported by the conventional media.
Neil Craig
(14) WHO'S YOUR POLLUTER
NOW?
Tim Ball
<timothyball@shaw.ca>
Hi Benny:
Under the Heading,
"Who's your polluter now?" Wendell Krossa properly points out the
changes and benefits of increased yields on less land, especially in the US.
However, he should acknowledge the work of Dennis Avery who years ago pointed
out how an increase in productivity on existing farmland would lead to a
reduction of use of other lands, especially forests and grasslands. I have long
recommended his book (it was required reading for my students) "Saving
the Planet with Plastics and Pesticides."
In Canada we have less land
under cultivation now than in 1930 producing far more food. As Avery has noted
we could reduce even more if the amount of research and increase in yields for
cereal grains was to equal the increase achieved in the US corn industry.
Ironically, most people have no idea what is gong on down on the farm because
the tremendous productivity allows them to live in cities remote from the
process that supports them. Simply put; there are no farms in the cities, but
no cities without farms. Of course, we could also add many other benefits
farmers provide such as the net removal of 50% of the CO2 mostly put into the
atmosphere by urbanites as the crops grow every year. How about carbon credits
for that?
Tim Ball Ph.D
(15) CALLING FOR
ECO-FRIENDLY GENOCIDE?
Robert Waldrop
<bwaldrop@cox.net>
Benny,
I cannot personally vouch
for the accuracy of the story below, but it is sure burning up the cyber-wires
in the United States. I thought it might be the type of story you could post.
Bob Waldrop, OKC
--------------
Society for Amateur
Scientists, 31 March 2006
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html
Recently citizen scientist
Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science
during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the
extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful
manner. Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped
by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said.
Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul.
Astonishingly, Forrest
reports that many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a standing
ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance
itself from the speaker's remarks.
If the professional
community has lost its sense of moral outrage when one if their own openly
calls for the slow and painful extermination of over 5 billion human beings,
then it falls upon the amateur community to be the conscience of science.
Forrest, who is a member of
the Texas Academy and chairs its Environmental Science Section, told me he
would be unable to describe the speech in The Citizen Scientist because he has
protested the speech to the Academy and he serves as Editor of The Citizen
Scientist.
Therefore, to preclude a
possible conflict of interest, I have directed Forrest to describe what he
observed and his reactions in this special feature, for which I have served as
editor and which is being released a week ahead of our normal publication
schedule. Comments may be sent to Backscatter.
Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.,
MacArthur Fellow,
Founder and Executive Director,
Society for Amateur
Scientists
Special Editorial: Dealing
with Doctor Doom
Meeting Doctor Doom
Forrest M. Mims III
Copyright 2006 by Forrest M.
Mims III.
There is always something special
about science meetings. The 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at
Lamar University in Beaumont on 3-5 March 2006 was especially exciting for me,
because a student and his professor presented the results of a DNA study I
suggested to them last year. How fulfilling to see the baldcypress ( Taxodium
distichum ) leaves we collected last summer and my tree ring photographs
transformed into a first class scientific presentation that's nearly ready to
submit to a scientific journal (Brian Iken and Dr. Deanna McCullough,
"Bald Cypress of the Texas Hill Country: Taxonomically Unique?" 109th
Meeting of the Texas Academy of Science Program and Abstracts [ PDF ], Poster
P59, p. 84, 2006).
But there was a gravely
disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I
watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science
rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that
enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population
by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the
University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy
named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
Something curious occurred a
minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a
video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in
animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed
the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.
This curious incident came
to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by
explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about
to tell us. Because of many years of experience as a writer and editor,
Pianka's strange introduction and the TV camera incident raised a red flag in
my mind. Suddenly I forgot that I was a member of the Texas Academy of Science
and chairman of its Environmental Science Section. Instead, I grabbed a notepad
so I could take on the role of science reporter.
One of Pianka's earliest
points was a condemnation of anthropocentrism, or the idea that humankind
occupies a privileged position in the Universe. He told a story about how a
neighbor asked him what good the lizards are that he studies. He answered,
“What good are you?” Pianka hammered his point home by exclaiming, “We're no
better than bacteria!”
Pianka then began laying out
his concerns about how human overpopulation is ruining the Earth. He presented
a doomsday scenario in which he claimed that the sharp increase in human
population since the beginning of the industrial age is devastating the planet.
He warned that quick steps must be taken to restore the planet before it's too
late.
Saving the Earth with Ebola
Professor Pianka said the
Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and
without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only
feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent
of the present number.
He then showed solutions for
reducing the world's population in the form of a slide depicting the Four
Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead,
disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that
must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. ….
FULL REPORT at
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html
(16) AND FINALLY: THIS HAS
TO BE THE WETTEST DROUGHT YET
The Guardian, 4 April 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/water/story/0,,1746298,00.html
Tim Dowling
Not being native to these
isles, I used to have trouble understanding what people meant by the word
drought. "It's terribly worrying, isn't it, the drought?" they would
say. Perhaps, I thought to myself, they're talking about some obscure livestock
ailment, or maybe they just pronounce "draft" funny. But I know they
can't be talking about that other thing, the not having enough water thing,
because it's raining frigging sideways.
Even today when people say,
"It's been so dry these last two winters, hasn't it?", I nod in vague
agreement, but I think, "What are you talking about? Compared with
where?" This week, hosepipe bans came into effect across the south-east,
making it illegal for 10 million people to water their gardens or wash their cars
with a hose. I have more or less accepted that England is a country where
adequate water supplies are maintained only through unrelenting,
round-the-clock rain, and that any gap in the clouds spells doom, followed by
standpipes in the streets. I also know it's no use pointing out that it's
raining right now. I know it's the wrong kind of rain. It's too wet, or
something.
This is nevertheless my
first official hosepipe ban, and in a panic at the prospect of it I rushed out
and spent a hundred quid on a giant water butt made out of an old whisky
barrel. After I installed it I got a bit worried because I read that if you let
a barrel dry out it will collapse into a pile of staves and hoops. Even my
precaution seemed like a form of moronic optimism. Why didn't I just get the
ugly green plastic kind of water butt? Didn't I realise there was a drought on?
Well here it is, the first
week in April, and my barrel runneth over. The lid is floating on its brimming
surface. I've got more water than I know what to do with, presuming I can
attach a hose to my barrel without breaking the law. But I still have many
questions about the details of the ban. For example, can I wash my car with the
water that flows under its wheels from the broken main up the road? It's been
running like a babbling brook all winter, excepting the day the men from Thames
Water came to fix it, when it exploded like a geyser and shot mud and gravel
into the neighbour's open third-storey window, after which the men ran away.
Sometimes I think it would be nice to have a standpipe instead, so we could at
least turn it off.
This is of course just a
small part of the 915,000 litres a day - 17 Olympic swimming pools an hour -
that Thames Water loses through leaks, representing a third of the total
supply. They say they're currently spending £500,000 a day repairing London's
network of 150-year-old Victorian pipes, but I am not very impressed with them
leaving it so long. I blame their complacency on the relative harmlessness of
water. You don't see the gas people letting a third of their product leak away
in transit. If you want any water this summer, see me. I'll be giving it away,
and mine tastes faintly of whisky.
Copyright 2006, The Guardian
CCNet is
a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an
e-mail to listserver@livjm.ac.uk (“subscribe cambridge-conference”).
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. 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 editor.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/