Geoscientist Online

Sir, “Geo-engineering at Durham incorporates Geotechnical Engineering, Geo-Environmental Engineering and Engineering Geology.” (University of Durham, School of Engineering website, visited 10 December 2010).

“The 'International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories' (a journal of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering) covers the broad area of practice in geotechnical engineering (soils and rocks), geotechnical earthquake engineering, environmental geotechnics and engineering geology." (Journal website visited 10 December 2010).

It is intensely irritating to many engineering geologists and geotechnical engineers that the Royal Society and the NERC, too, have 'hijacked' the term 'Geo-engineering' (or 'Geoengineering') for the field of research seeking to find ways of artificially controlling climate change. At least they could have done what all researchers are taught to do and carried out a literature search.

Of course, it's too late now to change things but, perhaps, this demonstrates the contempt in which these researchers hold some of their supposed colleagues. Pity that Peter Hurrell (the NERC's Stakeholder Liaison Officer – Geoscientist 20,12, 16-17) didn't liaise a bit more with stakeholders at the Geological Society before joining the 'hijackers'.

Sir, It's a year now since I opted not to receive a paper journal, and I realise in that time I haven't looked at QJEGH. The thud of the paper version through the letter box at least provoked me to look at the contents page, to see if there was something I should read. Without this reminder, I don't get around to logging in to see whether the next issue has been published and what is in it. I'm a commercial geologist rather than an academic, and keeping up with the literature is not my day job. Would it be possible to email out the contents list to subscribers? This would provide a reminder, has negligible ongoing cost, and is also quicker than logging in to check.

Neil Marriott replies:

This is very easily done via the Lyell Collection, and you can receive updates by either email or RSS. For email alerts:

1. go to the QJEGH home page http://qjegh.lyellcollection.org
2. click on "email alerts"
3. login and click "add/edit/delete TOCs"
4. check the box which says "Table of Contents (Full)"

Sir, Thank you, Nina Morgan, for bringing us the story of a hard-working (but challenged in the pay department) public servant. It brings to mind my childhood experience of visiting my father's workplace, where such a cat efficiently dealt with rodents in the museum-like Stores department of Wolverhampton Corporation Transport (and nobody worried about allergies in those days).

Other museums at the same time as the GSM had bona fide felines on staff, though their names and status are rarely recorded (see picture of the Queensland Museum staff in the 1920s where the cat was furthest left in the line-up). In the Depression, staff pay was cut by half (Mather ed. 1986) but I don't know if the cat was affected by these austerity measures. These days institutions employ expensive pest operatives and rat traps and poison. Wouldn't it be nice (and supposedly good for our health too) if they brought back the resident cat. My own feline has often helped giving moral support to my work (and sometimes by stopping me by sitting on the computer keys) and caught a local mouse or two. At least one cat has had a fossil named after it (see Turner et al. 2010).

Maybe "Snapper" could put out a call for more animal assistants?

References

• Mather, P. (ed.). A Time for a Museum. The History of the Queensland Museum 1862 1986. Queensland Museum, Brisbane.
• Turner, S., Burek, C. & Moody, R.T. 2010. Forgotten women in an extinct Saurian 'mans' World. In: Moody, R.T., Buffetaut, E., Martill, D. & Naish, D. Eds. Dinosaurs and Other Extinct Saurians: A Historical Perspective. The Geological Society, London, Special Publication, 343, 111-153.

*Honorary Research Fellow, Queensland Museum Geosciences

Sir, I was pleased to see that the Society has dared to publish a climate change statement (Geoscientist 20.11 November 2010).

To geologists, the discussions are familiar - although the significance of some of the large numbers, for example "500 billion tonnes of carbon", is more difficult to appreciate. The descriptions of past climates in the statement fit well with what is already widely known about warmer Earths of the past. The statement brings home the particularly cold character of our present times. It is an unfortunate fact of life that the caveats that always accompany scientific statements may seem, to a layman, to weaken the thrust of the main argument (when, in fact, they strengthen it).

There must have been a lot of debate on the concluding sentence about the Inconvenient Truth ("...In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be"). This sentence ascribes a potential for collective wisdom to the human race. The term "uncomfortable" is applied there to the effect on economic life of reducing carbon emissions but it will certainly apply to the effect of sea level rise. Perhaps anthropologists and sociologists should now be enlisted to model and publish descriptions of the way civilisation has reacted to such uncomfortable events in the past, some of which have been reported in Geoscientist, and which geneticists call "population squeezing". Meanwhile geologists can try to get comfortable in the front line of the debate.

From Dr John Heathcote (Rec'd  18 november, Pub'd 9 December 2010)

Sir, It's good to see the Geol Soc's Statement on climate change, but I can't help thinking that it is a little 'low key'.

Geologists are often more involved in the climate change process than most others. In addition to the carbon dioxide emitting behaviours we share with the rest of humanity, many geologists are more active accessories to the carbon-emitting process, in their hunt for fossil fuels. Other geologists are involved in renewables, or radioactive waste management (important if we are to rely on nuclear as a low carbon electricity source in the future), or storage of captured carbon dioxide. Geologists are also essential to unveiling the history of planetary processes documented in the Statement.

Meanwhile, what are we doing as individuals and as geologists to mitigate this impending catastrophe? The geological record gives us confidence that life will go on regardless of what we do to the atmosphere, but it also makes it clear that the probability that it will include humans is very small.

From Kym L Morton

Sir, Great idea – go for it! Thanks for all the hard work, it is always a pleasure to read

From John Bennett

Sir, Your logic for the reduction in the number of issues per year makes sense to this reader even if 'cost-cutting' raises its unwelcome head on every possible occasion at present! I'll reserve judgement on the new format as I find Geoscientist pretty readable now - keep swimming!

From George Xeidakis

Sir, I suggest Geoscientist to be bimonthly, thus to reduce its cost even more and to have a little bigger letters as it is difficult to be read by some older people like me.

Editor replies: Yes, we will be redesigning with readability in mind.

From Andrew Sims

Sir, In general, I find Geoscientist to be a fine read, and I particularly enjoy the lively discussions and your thought-provoking editorials. The only point that jars with me is that the obituaries section is so close to the front: almost the first real "meat" in the magazine. While I do think celebrating the lives of fellows is essential, having this section so "up-front" leaves a rather negative impression on me: it almost suggests that the Society is putting more emphasis on looking back, rather than reaching forward.

Editor replies: Yes, the obits will be in the back in future.

From John Helm

Sir, I have often wondered why we don't do like the PESGB and publish a single combined July/August magazine as most geologists are either juggling work with holidays or out doing field work during this period?. I receive a number of publications per month but Geoscientist is the only one I read cover to cover - keep up the good work.

Editor replies: We thought about combining summer issues, but for work and copyflow reasons chose the Christmas period, in line with many other magazines, to condense two issues into one. The situation remains under review, though for the present our agreement is to stay at 11 issues for the foreseeable future.

From Kevin Privett

Sir, When re-vamping Geoscientist I would like to make plea for a bigger font size. I wear glasses that reduce the image size slightly, and I find the small font very difficult in less than very bright light. Cutting down to 11 per year might help with the eye strain!

Editor replies: Yes, we will be redesigning with readability in mind.

From Jo Conway

Sir, I really like the mag, I’d not received it in previous years… and am benefiting from a letter that came through to College last summer.

Some of the articles are “bang on specification” (WJEC A level Geology) and I would like to be able to share it with my students, is there an electronic version? At the moment I lend it to my students but it’s very ad hoc and time consuming.

In College we use a site called Moodle, so students can get access to course resources. It would be brilliant to put either the electronic mag on their or a link to a website if it’s on there?

Editor replies: Geoscientist issues are all downloadable on the website as PDFs, from the "in this month's issue" page.  Anyone may link to the page or use the PDF with acknowledgement.

From Dave Elliott

Sir, I like the current Geoscientist, which is by far the best of the society "newsletter" type publications that I get. However, I look forward to the new design. Keep up the good work!

From Kevin Elford

Sir, I think that the explanation re cost cutting is a pretty poor excuse. First we have to pay more for a hard copy for the Journal of the Geological Society, and now this. I can imagine that soon the Geoscientist will also only be available online. If that is ever the case then I will stop my subscription. I suggest that you think long and hard about these cost-cutting issues.

Editor replies: There are no plans to make Geoscientist online only at present, and as the byelaws require the Society to communicate regularly with ALL Fellows, and the only way to achieve this is by surface mail, it looks unlikely.

From Dr John S Conway

Sir, Much as I love reading Geoscientist, I do have a problem with the lack of disability accessibility in the way it is designed and printed. Given the wide push of the Equality Act, it would be appropriate to bring Geoscientist into line while re-designing it. Two key issues are the use of serif fonts, which are harder for dyslexic people to read, and the habit of printing text over images or strongly patterned background makes it hard for dyslexic people and perhaps impossible for visually impaired people to read. I hope you can take such accessibility issues on board. It’s a wonderful magazine!

Editor replies: Yes, we will be redesigning with readability in mind.

Sir, Martill & Heads¹ complain that “it is no longer possible to collect fossils anywhere in Brazil” and that they “were compelled to leave material behind”. We of the Sociedade Brasileira de Paleontologia (SBP) were very happy to learn from their article (Geoscientist 17.11) that the Brazilian government’s efforts towards preventing the despoliation of the nation’s paleontological resources are achieving success.

Brazil has lost countless valuable fossil specimens in recent decades, illegally taken from the country. Most of them ended up in the hands of unknown private collectors, but many are housed in renowned research institutions all over the world. This letter is therefore aimed not at criminal fossil dealers or other “business” enterprises, but to fellow paleontologists interested in working with Brazilian fossils.

Martill & Heads are absolutely right when they say that “the international fame awarded to the Araripe Basin is the direct consequence of the efforts of scientists of many nationalities”, and the SBP supports any attempt to bring scientific collaborators together. Yet this can be achieved without permanently removing Brazilian fossils from the country. It is important for foreign palaeontologists to know that, since 1942, Brazilian law forbids the ownership of fossils collected in the country, all of which belong to the Union (although housed at, and cared for by scientific institutions).

Therefore, it is illegal for any private party (individual or corporate, Brazilian or foreign) to own - let alone sell, buy, or export - Brazilian fossils. We know that illegal dealing is frequent, and we do not deny that its prevention is a Brazilian duty. That said, the government is taking action to prevent fossil dealing and to develop palaeontological research in areas where it occurs. A new set of rules concerning activities with fossils was approved this year by the nation’s Mining Department (DNPM), which also confiscated fossils that were to be exported by a private Brazilian company and contacted Interpol in an attempt to rescue a collection of Brazilian fossils on auction in France.

Three years ago, the French police discovered another load of Brazilian fossils at Charles de Gaulle Airport, whose repatriation is now being negotiated. Also, the Brazilian Science Foundation (CNPq) has approved a budget of c. £5m for palaeontological research, nearly half of which is to be applied in areas were fossil dealing is a real/potential problem (such as the Araripe Plateau and the states of Rio Grande do Sul and Acre). Foreign paleontologists are welcome to work in Brazil and with Brazilian fossils, but ought to follow the current legislation of the Science and Technology Ministry (www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/19340.html):

1. Field work has to be conducted in collaboration with Brazilian teams;
2. Fossils can be legally taken abroad for research, but must be previously registered in an official Brazilian collection and returned to the country afterwards.

Finally, we expect support from foreigner colleagues and institutions by not acquiring Brazilian fossils illegally taken from the country.

Reference

1. Martill, D.M. & Heads, S.W. 2007. Out of Eden?. Geoscientist 17(11): 20-24.

Sir, Geoscientist has long been remarkably open to airing what may be regarded as "minority viewpoints" - for example, as regards the existence (or not) of mantle plumes, the coincidence (or not) of the Chicxulub crater with the K-T impact layer and end-Cretaceous extinctions, and the seriousness (or not) of anthropogenic global warming and ancillary effects such as sea level rise. This has certainly enlivened debate.

I wonder what proportion of fellows consider that anthropogenic global warming, largely caused by greenhouse gas emissions, is likely to take place in the geologically near future (and has probably already started)?  I can speak on behalf of the the Geological Society's Stratigraphy Commission, which is some sort of straw poll of professional stratigraphers (chosen for technical expertise rather than environmental fervour).  Here, the ratio is currently somewhat in excess of 9:1 in favour of the mainstream - i.e. broadly IPCC - position.

In a recent paper in GSA Today discussing the likely validity of the 'Anthropocene' concept (that humanity has substantially altered the course of surface geological processes on Earth, in which anthropogenic change to atmospheric and ocean chemistry and climate play a substantial part), 21 out of 22 Commission members opted to be co-authors, with one dissenter.

This is not to make any claims of correctness or certainty (as scientists, we are all professional sceptics, after all).  I aim simply to point out that the balance of evidence currently suggests - to this subset of geologists - that there is a real, and potentially serious, phenomenon out there.

Thus, it seems appropriate for the Geological Society, and Geoscientist, to reflect that - and of course to offer space to opposing views, much as it has done.

Sir, At the risk of still further muddying the waters of the discussions about the origin of global warming I should like to express my disappointment at the standard of the arguments being used, especially by "believers".

I do not have the technical knowledge necessary to understand the three dimensional fluid-dynamics and thermodynamics of the atmosphere which seems to control our weather, or of the computer modelling which is used to predict future events. I have to rely on the arguments presented by others, and remember the past record of the number of "universally agreed" theories which have been displaced in due course by better knowledge put forward by original thinkers from Galileo onwards.

The response of "believers" to the "sceptics" is, too often, not to address their specific arguments but to dismiss them as (a) flat Earthers or (b) in the pay of the oil industry (to have to rely on this smear is particularly disappointing). Abuse is no argument.

For instance the CO₂ concentration appears to have increased more or less linearly in the last 100 years since 1910 but in contrast the temperature rise has been intermittent and non-linear.  For half of those 100 years it has been rising and for the other half it has been constant or falling. This appears to weaken the link between cause and effect.

And the archaeologists tell us people in Roman times and the Middle Ages appeared to enjoyed a warmer climate than today before the advent of coal-fired power stations and cheap air travel. And apparently it was both warmer still and colder in the geological past.

The extent to which the variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun has an influence on our climate was discussed as long ago as 1892 by Sir Robert Ball in his book The Cause of an Ice Age.

If the believers can demonstrate that their computer models include and predict these changes we could have more confidence in them.

From Colin Summerhayes* (Rec'd & Pub'd 15 November 2010)

Sir, Robert Freer (Letters, 3 November, above) rightly notes that “people in Roman times and the Middle Ages appeared to enjoyed a warmer climate than today before the advent of coal-fired power stations and cheap air travel”.

The warming of medieval times is known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). According to the father of climatology in Britain, Hubert Lamb¹, it lasted from around AD 900-1400. It was followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA)¹, which lasted from about AD 1400-1750. The cooling of the LIA was not uniform, but focused in certain periods during which there were hardly any sunspots: the Sporer Minimum (1400-1520) and Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). Earth gets less energy from the sun when there are fewer sunspots than when there are many. Some researchers regard the LIA as having extended into the 19th Century in association with a subsequent sunspot minimum - the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830).

That the LIA was a global event related to diminished solar activity has been well established for example by Maasch et al. (2005)². What many people do not realise is that Lamb recognised that the MWP was not uniform and thus not global: as he said (p.171) “China and Japan evidently missed this warm phase”.  He went on to note (p.172) that “the lands where the warmth of the high Middle Ages was most marked” was around the Atlantic – by which he meant the North Atlantic. Indeed, Maasch et al (2005) use geochemical data to show that there is no clear relationship between the MWP and sunspots, which helps to explain Lamb’s observations. Mayewski and Maasch (2006)³ point out, further, that the MWP is absent from Antarctica, where there is a warming event from AD 500-1000. These various lines of evidence concerning the MWP are either ignored or unknown by the so-called climate ‘sceptics’ (a title I object to because as a scientist I am sceptical by training and inclination).

Mr Freer alludes to the fact that our climate is influenced by the Earth’s orbit around the sun and wonders if this has been considered by climate modellers. This influence is discussed in considerable detail in the several books and papers in the reading list attached to the GSL’s climate change statement. The tiny changes in solar radiation received on Earth as the result of predictable changes in the Earth’s orbit recur with frequencies of 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years - time scales far longer than the human time scale or than the periods considered by the numerical models used for climate forecasting. Nevertheless, the slight gradual decline in global temperature since the Holocene climatic optimum 8000 years ago is likely to have resulted from these orbitally driven changes. The climate and palaeoclimate science communities do recognise the existence of these tiny variations in the climate background of the past few hundred years and their likely change in the future.

Finally, in response to Mr Freer’s comment about the apparent lack of tight linkage between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere today, it seems fair to point out that the links of cause and effect between CO₂ and temperature are not simple. That is because of the wide variety of feedbacks within the Earth system. CO₂ is both absorbed by and emitted from the land surface and the ocean at different times, at different rates and in different places, obscuring a direct connection to temperature. From time to time major volcanic eruptions like that of Mt Pinatubo in 1991 thrust dust into the stratosphere and so change the global temperature for short periods (1-3 years). Temperature is also affected by changes in Earth’s albedo (e.g. the amount of sea ice or land ice reflecting energy to space at any one time).

Climate modellers try as best they can to take all of these feedbacks into consideration (see for example the climate science books by Sir John Houghton or David Archer referred to at the end of the GSL’s climate change statement). But by accounting for all known feedbacks they are unable to replicate the warming since 1970; they can only replicate it by incorporating the effects of anthropogenic emissions of CO₂ acting as a greenhouse gas.

References

1. Lamb, H.H., 1995, Climate, History and the Modern World. 2nd Edition (first published 1982). Routledge, London, 433pp
2. Maasch, K.A., et al., 2005, A 2000-year context for modern climate change. Geografiska Annaler 87 A., 7- 15.
3. Mayewski, P.A., and Maasch, K.A., 2006, Recent warming inconsistent with natural associatoion between temperature and atmospheric circulation over the last 2000 years. Climate of the Past Discussions, 2, 1-29: www.clim-past-discuss.net/2/1/2006/

* (GSL Vice President, Emeritus Associate, Scott Polar Research Centre, and Chair of the GSL climate-change statement's drafting group.)

From Peter Whiteside (Rec'd & Pub'd 2 November 2010)

I am writing to express my utter dismay at the articles by yourself and by Bob Ward in the October edition of Geoscientist.

My dismay at Bob Ward's piece, a man who is well known in the media and blogosphere as an ardent promoter of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is not caused by my disagreement with his views but its unscientific nature, and insinuation about the motives of Joe Brannan.  Moreover it was not accompanied by the reply from Joe Brannan which I see is now available on the website.

Geoscientist is a magazine for geoscientists concerned with scientific issues, and in my view the editorials should reflect this. They should be balanced, non-partisan and they should promote geoscience in a rational way. Your article was a call to arms of the worst kind. You address the Fellows of the Society by saying "...the probability of our being responsible for most of the measured warming of the last century ... should be accepted by everyone, everywhere, as fact." This is totally out of order, and I take great exception to being hectored in this way.

Your editorial is emotive, full of unjustified assertions and insinuations that I believe are out of place in Geoscientist. Your statement that the errors in the latest IPCC Assessment Report were "trivial" is highly debatable. Your claim that "...climate-change denyers are...strong in the dark side of...media management...and they are backed by powerful interests.", and that "denialists...being unconstrained by evidence...can construct any number of simple messages whenever they like." is grossly insulting to Fellows who like me maintain that the scientific evidence is far from clear and the theoretical hypotheses far from proven. The term "denyers" is provocatively abusive, recalling Holocaust denyers - and far from being "unconstrained by evidence" most scientists who are seriously sceptical about AGW want an open, scientific discussion of evidence, rather than the closed mentality and bullish assertiveness too frequently displayed by some parts of the AGW establishment.

From John G Gahan (Rec'd 20.10, Pub'd 3.11 2010)

How disappointing to note Ted Nield’s take on climate change (Editorial Vol 20. No 10 Oct 2010) following his previous editorial comment in the June edition. Notwithstanding Ted’s claim, human beings are not responsible for climate change despite the recharged campaign suggesting that they are. So why is Geoscientist attempting to sway us with unscientific critiques that AGW is responsible?

It will be evident to most geologists that atmospheric warming and cooling were the norm over long periods of geological time whereas in recent times empirical research suggests much shorter timeframes. Heinrich Events and D/O Cycles clearly point to rapid climate exchanges and indeed for the period 1979 to 1998 was a time of increased warming. Since then however the warming trend has declined to more ‘normal’ conditions (whatever normal may be). Influential bodies including (shamefully), the Royal Society, the BBC, parliamentarians and ministers aligned themselves with what can only be called ‘noble cause politics’ in support of dubious environmental initiatives rather than traditional scientific rigour.

The Editor is right about one thing though: ‘science consensus changes rarely and slowly’ and so indeed does science itself (as indeed do climates). But Ted’s analogy relating to smoking versus cancer to espouse his conviction is wrong. Quite apart from a lack of rigour in climate science generally, he overlooks the fact that it was the tobacco industry itself that deluded smokers with spurious data, not forgetting smokers themselves were/are hooked on the weed anyway while intuitively understanding the truth of the matter. However, perhaps akin to climate change, cancer is an uncomfortable reality and medical science is extremely assiduous to establish cause. Certainly a cure or powerful hypothesies is desirable and will always pertain, but until that time and unlike AGW conviction, is it not wiser to work with perceived claims rather than circumvent scepticism with dodgy science? It should be noted that temperature records (correlation) are not a measure of cause so geo-engineering projects and precautionary principles (relating to new laws) will prove to be extremely erroneous and costly in the long term as sound science, not speculation, will prevail.

References:

1. Costella J.P.-2010, ‘Climategate Analysis’ Science & Public Policy Institute, Vancouver. (http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1026&bih=675&q=climategate+analysis+costella&aq=1&aqi=g2&aql=&oq=Climategate+Analysis&gs_rfai=&fp=cee3fafcad61482)
2. Thorne, P. W., Parker, D. E., Tett, S. F. B., Jones, P. D., McCarthy, M., Coleman, H., and Brohan, P., 2005, Revisiting radiosonde upper-air temperatures from 1958 to 2002, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18105, doi: 10.1029/2004JD005753. (PDF file)

The Sunday Times ¹ has reported that China is about to begin a program to exploit economically valuable minerals from the deep-sea floor using the deep-sea craft, Jiaolong, which will have the capability of diving to a depth of 7000m, deeper than any existing craft at present, and the capability to sample 99% of the deep-sea floor.

This is, of course, not a new idea. During the HMS Challenger expedition of 1872-1876, large quantities of manganese nodules were recovered from the deep-sea floor by dredging at water depths of the order of 4500m, particularly in the equatorial N. Pacific where sedimentation rates are very low (1-2mm/yr) and nodule abundances high (up to 20kg/m² of the seafloor). However, the problem has always been the ability to bring these nodules to the surface at a commercial rate. Typically, this is thought to require mining the nodules at a rate of about 3 million tons (Mt) per year, the so-called 3Mt per year mine site.

This is a formidable proposition. It requires the nodules to be lifted to the sea surface at an average rate of 5.7t of nodules per hour (10kg/sec) throughout the year with no allowance for stoppages or breakdowns using an airlift system to bring the nodules to the surface and possibly a self propelled dredging device at the seafloor. In order to achieve that rate of recovery the dredge head would need to be about 20m wide. This rate of recovery has never been remotely achieved.

The second consideration is cost. Manganese nodules typical contain about 3% of valuable metals. The rest is gangue material of very limited use. According to the report in the Sunday Times, the Chinese want to mine an area of 29,000 km² located between the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zones in the equatorial S. Pacific which is thought to contain 112 Mt of manganese, 5.14Mt of nickel, 4.06Mt of copper and 0.98Mt of cobalt. However, it is generally considered that nodule mining will focus on just three elements, nickel, copper plus nickel. Prices of these metals today are about Ni $8310 per ton, Cu about $8000-9000 per ton and Co about $24,500 per ton. The total value of these deposits can therefore be calculated to be about $100 billion. However, manganese nodules are low-grade deposits which would require expensive ship time to recover them from the deep-sea floor and expensive leaching techniques to recover these metals from the nodules and process them. Their actual value on recovery would therefore be well below this evaluation.

The problems associated with the economic recovery of deep-sea manganese nodules have been described in detail by Glasby^2,3. In my opinion, commercial deep-sea mining remains a speculative venture for the future.

References

1. Sheridan, M. 2010. China’s diving dragon grabs at ocean riches. The Sunday Times 10 October, P. 32
2. Glasby, G.P. 2000. Lessons learned from deep-sea mining. Science 289: 551,553.
3. Glasby, G.P. 2002. Deep seabed mining: Past failures and future prospects. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology 20: 175-190.

Sir, Once upon a time, a long time ago, shortly after the Society first supported professionalism, Contaminated Land Specialists split from the Engineering Group and formed the "Environment Group"; considering themselves strong enough and numerous enough to go it alone. About that time Judith Nathanail and Paul Nathanail used the Training Guide for Engineering Geologists as a template to write a training guide for Environmental Geologists. I was asked to organise a group of specialists to review this guide on behalf of the Society (which I did) and we recommended that the Society formally issue it as an aid to supporting the training of geology graduates in this developing specialism.

The document was finished - but disappeared into a black hole otherwise known as a filing cabinet at Burlington House. I heard a rumour that it was later dusted off and updated when the CLEA system of contaminated land assessment was brought in by the Environment Agency but by the time that update was finished the Environment Group was dormant/extinct and the document was put back into its hole as "no one was around to approve it".

I suggest that one easy way for the Society to support Angela Baird and other contaminated land specialists would be to follow my suggestion, made in some frustration some years ago, " It has been fully reviewed so why not just put the **** document on a photocopier and press the print button!". That should be easy enough, if someone can find it - and would be a good start to giving Angela Baird the support she asks for (and surely easier that sending the document to yet another committee?).

*One time chairman of the professional matters sub-committee of the Engineering Group.

Sir, Bob Ward thinks I gave Andrew Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ an easy ride because I am sympathetic to his views. Not so. I commended the book because I found its arguments clear and convincing. I cannot say the same of Bob’s riposte. Two examples: First, Bob asks why I failed to mention the ‘detailed rebuttals’ of McIntyre’s critique in my review. Answer: I didn’t mention them because Montford discusses them ad nauseam in the book (Chapter 10 – Zone Defense). He shows that these rebuttals rely on much the same contested data as Mann’s original paper and, as a result, suffer from the same shortcomings. But don’t take my word for it – read the book and make up your own mind.

Second, Bob states that the US National Academy of Science Committee found Mann’s ‘overall conclusions to be plausible’. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. Apart from the fact that plausibility is hardly a robust scientific test, there is a lot more to this particular episode. There were in fact two committees; the second, led by the eminent statistician Edward Wegman, concluded that “Overall our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year cannot be supported by his analysis’¹”. In subsequent hearings the head of the NAS committee, Gerald North, was asked if he demurred from this opinion - he replied “We don’t disagree with their criticism, in fact it’s pretty much the same thing is said in our report”. Again, don’t take my word for any of this – go to the original sources and check for yourselves.

Bob notes that I am sympathetic to the sceptics. I am, but in a very specific sense; I believe that critics such as McIntyre have raised legitimate questions about the robustness of the Hockey Stick. They deserve a straight answer. Judith Curry, the only mainstream climatologist to review the book (as far as I am aware) agrees with me².

The hypothesis that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in 1000 years is profoundly important. We should be gathering data by the bucket-load to test it, instead of endlessly debating the meaning of the inadequate data-sets we have amassed to date. I have no doubt that the hypothesis can be conclusively tested, and I look forward to the result – regardless of whether it turns out to be true or false.

References

1. http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf
2. http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/25/climate-book-shelf/

I work for an engineering consultancy as an Engineering Geologist within a geotechnical team with some knowledge and experience of the contaminated land industry. Our projects often combine resources from the geotechnical and contaminated land teams to make the most of any ground investigations undertaken, working together to offer the client the solutions they require as efficiently as possible.

I believe it is important that engineering geologists/geotechnical engineers and contaminated land specialists have an appreciation of each others requirements and work together to achieve the best results from any ground investigation, especially during such financially challenging times as these.

What is the Society doing to aid communication between these specialists? The Engineering Group appears to be doing well in actively supporting and raising the profile of the engineering geologists. However, based on my experiences, Engineering Geologists do not have a monopoly on being underappreciated at work. I believe there should be more support for contaminated land specialists, particularly, within the construction industry - where the focus often falls heavily on the engineering aspects, with contamination aspects “tagged on”.

I was hoping that the (still!) un-revived Environment Group might take on this challenge. Failing that, perhaps the Engineering Group could assist the contaminated land specialists and their group, and work together to encourage and support each others’ specialisms, thus strengthening their links and stance within the construction industry?

Sir, I read with interest the debate regarding the status of the Tertiary in the August edition of Geoscientist.

As a practising geologist with more than 15 years' industry experience in hydrocarbon exploration, I wanted to record my own views on the useage of the terms.

Tertiary, Neogene & Paleogene are terms in common use and are useful in their own right. Generally, my colleagues and I use "Tertiary" as a catch-all for post-Mesozoic, pre-Quaternary systems and Paleogene or Neogene for convenience in lumping together Paleocene-Oligocene and Mio-Pliocene sequences.  "Tertiary" will always remain in usage, even if only informally, and I believe it would be better to reflect that in the official stratigraphy.  I agree from experience that the boundary between the Eocene and Oligocene has the greater stratigraphic significance and that ideally the Paleogene / Neogene boundary would have been set at the end Eocene.

I feel that as a division of stratigraphy that has served us well and is in common useage, "Tertiary" should be preserved in the scheme. I do not agree that this adds "unnecessary complexity for future generations of geologists to learn".

From John Buckeridge (Rec'd 23 August; Pub'd 25 August 2010)

I have read the article "Tertiary to-do" with some interest. As a palaeontologist, I am concerned that we are even contemplating deleting the Tertiary. In addition, I find the term K/T Boundary to be a very useful one - an alternative such as K/P would certainly confuse, as there are many Ps in the system.

If the boundary between the Palaeogene and Neogene were to be altered (along the lines suggested by Pearson & Hounslow), apparently to move the Oligocene into the Neogene, we would create widespread confusion. The term Tertiary is certainly more than on of "historical relevance". I am also saddened to read the apparent adoption (by default?) of the US English spelling of Palaeocene and Palaeogene. Perhaps there will soon be a move to remove "u" from "colour"?

I am sure that I shall not be alone in pointing this out, but in the otherwise excellent article on the Russian Arctic (Geoscientist 20(8)), and unless Russia has now annexed the Antarctic, the rather bemused looking penguin on p.18 is a long way from home (in that these birds are exclusively southern hemisphere).

I am reminded of Gary Larsen's well known cartoon, with two Arctic terns sitting on an ice floe and one saying to the other: "You mean we flew 25,000 miles for this?”

The bird appears to be an emperor penguin in moult (I am open to correction from any geoornithologist) and while these trek up to 120km from their nesting sites in Antarctica, I suspect this one must be seriously lost!

Editor writes:

Thank you to the many readers who have pointed this out. Clearly we should have challenged our assumption that the picture was correctly labelled, and the penguin merely out on a spree.

Sir, In their comments on my recent article Hambrey et al. (Geoscientist 20.06 June 2010) state that “...when glaciologists refer to the ‘collapse’ of ice sheets they do not mean disappearance in a few years, ...”.  Why did they not explain this to Gore, Hansen, Pachauri, Garrett and all the others who seem to have the wrong idea?

Hambrey et al. then continue "... [glaciologists] refer to a positive feedback whereby incremental change can lead to larger changes and, ultimately, to complete demise." This is a very private and specialised definition confined, so far as I know, to the authors. All the definitions of "collapse" I can find are similar to this one:

• Collapse - the act or instance of suddenly falling down, caving in, or crumbling (Collins English Dictionary).

I believe this is not only what most people understand by collapse, but also what the alarmists want to convey when they talk of the collapse of ice sheets. Suddenness is crucial to the idea.

So what time scale do these authors propose for their ‘collapse’ or ‘complete demise’? If not just a few years then when? Perhaps they join the (now dismissed) claim of Pachauri and the IPCC that Himalayan glaciers may disappear by 2035? Perhaps the icesheets will ‘collapse’ by 2100, but that would be pure surmise. The fact that the ice sheets where deep cores are drilled show no interruptions in half a million years indicates that it is extremely improbable.

Sir, I was disappointed with your editorial ‘Unreasonable Doubt ’ in which you appear to align young-Earth creationism with doubt about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in that both stances are ‘denial’ veiled under the guise of ‘scepticism’.

Such a correlation is hugely worrying - particularly with your stated ‘belief’ that “Yet there remains little reasonable doubt that anthropogenic climate change is real…”. Granted it is well documented that during the past 100 years or so, gradual surface warming may have taken place; but as a scientist I should be interested to see the (full) evidence for anthropogenic cause and effect. To my knowledge there are several (at least six) hypotheses that could ‘reasonably’ contribute individually or collectively to atmospheric warming - ignoring the AGW ‘consensus’ attributed by The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the University of East Anglia (UEA) ‘climategate’ emails which has denigrated science in the eyes of the wider world.

Regardless of Lord Rees’s first Reith Lecture in which he states AGW is not controversial (so science is dead then?), is it not significant that because there has been no proper debate the Royal Society - with its insular take on the merits of AGW science (exemplified by its president, exacted by the IPCC and extolled by the BBC) - has contributed to a runaway dogma at the expense of compatible research in this field? It is hardly surprising therefore the Royal finds itself under pressure from its astute Fellows to re-examine the evidence because of ‘reasonable doubt’.

As Geoscientist is said to uphold the guiding principles of science and is the forum of debate, then please let the real debate begin.

The November 2009 issue of Geographical Magazine presents a disturbing account of the present status of the Arctic region, mainly the Arctic North, and the impact of global warming there. Most importantly, Arctic Ocean temperatures have increased by about 0.6°C between 1982 and 2009. As a result, there has been a steady decline in the thickness of Arctic ice. For example, the average extent of sea ice has declined from 8.2 x 106km² in 1979 to 6.3 x 106km² in 2009, a decrease of 23% in 20 years. Similarly, ice thickness at the North Pole has decreased by 50% between 1958-1976 and 2003-2007. These results suggest that Arctic multi-sea ice will disappear in summer within 20-30 years. The situation in the Antarctic appears to be even more extreme with the Antarctic Peninsula warming by 3°C between 1983 and 2009. This led to the collapse of the Larsen B Ice shelf in 2002. Some estimates suggest that sea level could rise by more than 40cm by the end of the century. Melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets would pose major problems for an overpopulated planet in the late 21^st Century.

Over the last 20 years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mouna Lau Observatory in Hawaii have increased from about 350 p.p.m. in 1989 to about 388 p.p.m. in 2009, an increase of about 11%. If atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase at this rate for the rest of the century, the atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2100 would be about 435 p.p.m. The best estimate suggests that anthropogenic factors have contributed 75% of the rise of global temperatures since 1987†.

In addition, world population will be significantly higher in 2100 One estimate suggests that the median value world population will peak around 2070 at nine billion people and then slowly decreases to 8.4 billion by 2100.

In Russia itself, environmental stewardship is not a strong point. There are several major types of environmental impacts in the Russian Arctic as a result of waste discharges during offshore oil and gas activity, smelting of ore deposits to produce metals and nuclear weapons testing. Pollution is a serious problem wherever smelting is taking place. In such areas, the landscape is often degraded to a barren wilderness as far as the eye can see.

Global warming will be the most pressing problem faced by mankind over the course of the 21st Century. The most dramatic effects of global warming will occur in polar regions. Deep cuts in atmospheric CO2 emissions are a prerequisite for maintaining a stable environment into the future.

† Lockwood, M. 2008. Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature. III. Proc. R. Soc. 464 no. 2094: 1387-1404

* Geoff Glasby is a marine geochemist who has spent the last 22 years working around the world.

I have seen plenty of evidence of less recent Holocene climate change. However, properly controlled experiments are not readily possible, and I accept that others, for various reasons, remain sceptical.

I think geologists can probably agree that we are currently using fossil fuels at a rate greater than they are forming. This cannot be continued indefinitely, so we have to change at some time. If we are erroneous in the belief that fossil fuel consumption is adversely affecting climate, we will give up fossil fuel earlier than we may need to, but we would always have had to do it.

For those who make their livelihood from fossil fuel exploitation, maybe it's not so good. Others will earn a living out of alternatives. None of this is catastrophic. If global warming is real, the effects will be far reaching, and are likely to place unbearable strains on our globally integrated civilisation. I'm sure life on the planet will survive, but it may not include us!

In most other areas of life, if something might be really bad but we are not quite sure, the precautionary principle comes into play, even if it's inconvenient. Despite the effect on the fossil fuel industry, my belief is that there are grounds for caution, and we should seek to reduce emissions of warming gases substantially. It will involve major change to my lifestyle as well as everyone else’s, and it won't be politically popular; but that is not a reason not to do it.

Sir, Congratulations on having the courage to publish Cliff Ollier’s illuminating paper “Glaciers – Science and Nonsense” (Geoscientist, 20(3)), and thus bring to the attention of a British geoscientific audience the findings of his seminal paper for the venerable Lavoisier Group “The Greenland-Antarctica Melting Problem Does Not Exist”. Ollier’s contributions complement the more wide-ranging survey of climate science in the monumental “Heaven & Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science” by fellow-Lavoisierian Ian Plimer. (Congratulations, too, in publishing a remarkably uncritical review of this “important” book in Geoscientist, 20(4).)

If I have one scientific criticism of Ollier’s paper it is that its mention of “the global warming that took place between 1975 and 1998” is not as explicit as Plimer’s more forthright “There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998”. Of course, as Plimer cogently argues, the global temperature data are so riddled with flaws that we cannot really be sure that there has been any warming at all.

As both Plimer and Ollier have noted, the notion of man-made global warming is politically-driven pseudo-science, comparable with Lysenko’s ‘vernalisation’ in the Soviet Union of Stalin and Kruschev. As Ollier has put it in a thoughtful paper on this theme: “Lysenkoism was eventually replaced by real science; the same will happen to Global Warming eventually, because real science will not go away.” In fact, the current tyranny of the global warming orthodoxy in the UK is the reason I have to write pseudonymously (as a geoscientist working in an industry whose future is now hitched to the global warming bandwaggon).

Already, ripostes have started coming in, criticising Ollier’s Geoscientist paper (see below). No surprise that they include people styling themselves as glaciologists and the like. As Plimer trenchantly put it in a BBC Radio 4 Today Programme interview in November 2009, his critics are “rent-seekers”, whose careers are staked on the war against climate change. Critics who accuse Plimer and others of falsification and misrepresentation of data are not to be compared with the tenacious investigators who have revealed the subterfuges of UEA. The works of the Lavoisierians are excluded from the peer review process, so it should hardly be a matter of sincere surprise or concern that they contain errors, whether large or small. In any case, in the field of scientific combat, this is an asymmetric conflict, and it is not reasonable to expect ‘guerillas’ opposing illegitimate ‘occupying forces’ to abide by some sort of Geneva Convention of science.

If there is any question as to where the majority of scientific opinion lies on global warming, Plimer’s observation in his Today Programme interview that the “most abundant number of scientists (in Australia) are geologists” must carry some weight. As a geologist myself it is heartening to have “Australia’s best-known geologist” (and an Honorary Fellow of the Geological Society at that) as a spokesman for our science.

All that said, I think the Lavoisierians have not pursued the generic problem of Lysenkoist pseudoscience far enough. Plimer has pointed out that the much-vaunted Montreal Protocol (which purports to address the alleged effects of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on stratospheric ozone) does not address chlorine used in water treatment, or the “very large quantities of CFCs” emitted by volcanoes such as Mt Pinatubo. As we anticipate the demise of the Kyoto Protocol, the pseudoscience behind its Montreal proto-ancestor goes unchallenged. Will the Lavoisierians pick up the gauntlet?

*Name and address supplied. Editor.

I have a strong interest in safety during fieldwork, my survival. My problem with the HSE zealots who increasingly attempt to dictate our behaviour is that all too often they do not distinguish between risk assessment that is a matter of common sense and is advisory and that which is not and is mandatory, ie consideration of circumstance.

If I was an employee in a helicopter making an emergency landing on water I would prefer not to trust my common sense and would bless an HSE culture that had insisted on prior training in what to do before letting me fly. As a retired geologist who still enjoys a spot of fieldwork, I reckon it up to me to use my common sense to make my own evaluation of risk and I get irritated when I see pictures of ‘politically correct’ field parties with all members sporting safety helmets when examining outcrops no higher than their noses.

I realise that unsupported excavations can be dangerous; recent tragedy only reinforces the need for proper training in avoiding such risk, but I do not accept the caption to the picture in Matthew McGann’s recent soapbox article, “on no account should anyone, ever, do this….” if only because I have not seen the site! Common sense tells me that if the excavation is in loose material, narrow and deep, then jumping down into it is clearly not to be recommended; if it is relatively wide, barely head-height and in relatively compacted or cemented material ( as suggested by the photograph) then surely one can proceed. The decision is to be made on-site, not by blanket dictat from some jobsworth in an office.

It is a sad commentry on our times that Matthew’s idiot receiving a rude shock after standing on a ladder in a swimming-pool using an electric drill is only to be dismissed as such if he /she owns the pool, ladder and drill. If not possibly (ideally) three people might be sued for allowing the rude shock to happen by loaning equipment or allowing access to the pool. Trebles all round ! The good and necessary parts of safety practice can only suffer if there is perception that laws based on HSE advice are written more for the benefit of lawyers than workers.

Geological fieldwork can be dangerous, sometimes this adds to its zest. Good advice and training have a vital role to mitigate danger; but so does common sense. And at my school there was no PPE in the chemistry lab!

Sir, Rick Brassington bemoans the poor take-up of the Chartered Geologists (CGeol) professional qualification (Geoscientist 20.1, January 2010). In his earlier history of the Institution of Geologists (‘Institution of Geologists – a brief history’) he notes that ‘… only a minority of professional geologists are Chartered geologists….’. Little has changed in the intervening period.

The largest group of professional geologists is probably those employed in the oil industry. The Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain’s membership is currently around 5200. The protracted process that finally resulted in the merger of the Institution of Geology with the Society (Brassington op.cit.) appeared to have taken place without the involvement of this group whose interests since 1965 have been represented by the PESGB. It might have helped to widen the recognition of the CGeol qualification if they could have been, in some way, involved.

The Society, by virtue of the merger, has assumed the role of professional regulator, yet the majority of those employed in the oil industry do not appear to recognise the need to acquire this professional qualification. Why is this?

A considerable proportion of oil industry staff are Earth science graduates and today many have, in addition, master degrees in petroleum geoscience or PhDs in specialised areas of the subject. On recruitment, they are placed in teams with experienced professionals and their work carefully supervised. Many employers additionally provide relevant courses on a continuing basis to augment on-the -job training, After three years or so, they are regarded as professionally competent.

This training process is probably as rigorous if not more so than that needed to meet the requirements of the CGeol qualification. The suggestion (Brassington , Geoscientist vol. 20,p.12) that should the Society abandon its role, then it ‘…would downgrade professional geoscientists to technician status…’.is, in the context of the oil industry, ridiculous. A further disincentive for industry professionals may be the need to be a Fellow of the Society in order to be eligible to apply for CGeol status.

In short, it is a qualification that some may feel is ‘nice to have’ but I suspect few in the oil industry feel it is a ‘must have’. In complete contrast, all the engineering disciplines require professional membership if a person is to progress professionally. Brassington suggests a number of ways by which the situation might be improved, citing employer recognition of CGeol as an important factor. If oil companies were to stipulate that all new recruits obtain CGeol and that this was essential for career advancement, the situation might indeed change dramatically.

However, given that recruits to the industry are academically well qualified, that the further training provided is excellent and often on a continuing basis, the CGeol will, I suspect, remain as far as the oil industry is concerned, ‘nice to have’ rather than a ‘must have’.

Editor writes:

This and other responses to Brassington's piece may be found as subjacent pages to the online version of the original article.

Sir, It was with interest that I read the supporting statements of the Council nominees for 2010-11. First, to see their enthusiasm and ideas and second because of the make-up of the nominees. One topic of discussion at a recent Professional Standing Committee meeting that I attended was the lack of Fellows from academia and the oil industry going forward for Chartership. This was again commented on in the summary report on the first round of Chartership interviews under the new system.

It therefore struck me as ironic that of the 11 Council nominees, eight are from the oil industry or academia. Obviously interest and good will does persist in these fields; so perhaps whoever is voted onto Council may wish, as a group, to take up the challenge of tackling this shortfall.

Sir, David Strachan provides a view of the future, based on peak oil occurring between 2016 and 2037 [1]. Peak oil was previously forecast in 1971 at between 1990 and 2000 [2] and in 1998 at 2008 [3]. Capital investment tends to follow the cyclic variation in commodity prices. This investment cycle coupled with the typical field production profile will inevitability lead to a perception that there will be a decline in global production in 10 – 20 years time. Whether there will be sufficient investment put in place to defer peak oil beyond 2020 will depend on finance availability, future oil prices, oil demand and the degree to which investment substitution into other energy forms occurs.

There are four groups of unconventional oil (primary resource (e.g. tar sand, oil shale [1])), refined products (e.g. GTL, CTL [1]), biofuels (e.g. biodiesel [4]) and geoengineered oil [5, 6]) which may contribute to filling any supply gap. Unconventional oil sources can be capital intensive and may be energy intensive. GTL and CTL project economics depend on the margin between the price paid for the gas/coal feedstock and the price received for the product oil. Tar sand and oil shale project economics depend on the product price. CO₂ emission constraints may impose a significant additional cost burden. Consequently, significant investment in these technologies (sufficient to produce 20 – 40 MMBO/d) is unlikely to occur until sometime after peak oil has occurred with an associated substantial oil price rise in the 5 – 10 year forward markets.

Mr Strachan did not consider two emerging comparatively low cost unconventional oil technologies, which appear to have potential to fill the perceived oil supply gap after 2020 [1]. These technologies appear to be cost competitive with conventional oil exploration and production. They are:-

1. Biofuels: Traditional biofuels (e.g. derived from corn, soyabean, sunflower, rapeseed and palm oil) have a very high land take and produce 127 – 4,481 bbls triglycerols/yr/km² [4]. The next generation of biofuel crops based on algae currently has yields of 35,286 – 105,857 bbls triglycerols /yr/km² [4]. The cost of producing about 11 x 10⁶ bbls/d of triglycerols (the feedstock for methyl-esters (biodiesel)) from algae is currently estimated at around $11.5/bbl [4]. Biofuel yield can be enhanced by passing sequestered CO₂ through the algae [4].
2. Catalytic Geoengineering of CO₂ sequestration reservoirs: Modification of reservoir pore water composition both prior to and during CO₂ sequestration has the potential to convert sequestered CO₂ to oil (which can subsequently be recovered) [5,6]. For example, sequestration of 100 MMscfd CO₂ may result in the formation of >47 MMBO (at 40 – 70^o C, >5 MPa) within an 11-year time period. i.e. >1 bbl oil per 8500 scft of sequestered CO₂. The estimated anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 were 49 Gt CO₂-eq, of which >30 Gt are CO₂ [7]. This emerging technology offers the potential to manufacture from anthropogenic CO₂ emissions >63 G Bbls/yr (>170 MMBO/day) of gasoline grade oil  within the reservoir. This represents a potential recoverable resource of 60 – 120 MMBO/d plus associated hydrocarbon gas products. This new technology has emerged from field and experimental evidence for a new model for high volume, fast, catalytic, oil formation at low temperatures (10-150⁰C) and medium pressures (5 – 80 MPa) in the geological (sedimentary) environment (Australia, Baltic, China, East/West Atlantic, East/Central Pacific, Equador/Peru, India, Middle East, North Sea, New Zealand, Russia) [6, 8].

These two emerging technologies appear to have the potential to meet the future global requirement for gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, and diesel, while at the same time finding a productive use for sequestered CO₂ by recycling it to form either biodiesel or oil.

In the event that peak oil does occur by around 2020, it is likely that the resultant high oil prices, and government incentives to develop unconventional oil resources and manage carbon, will provide the necessary investment environment to ensure both prolonged operation of depleting fields and substantial new investment into unconventional oil. There can be little doubt (given the size of the known unconventional resources) that with sufficient investment any oil supply gap can be closed for the foreseeable future.

1. Strachan, D., 2010. Bridging the energy gap. Geoscientist, 20, 2, 15-19.
2. Hubbert, M.K., 1971. The energy resources of the earth, Scientific American, 225, (September), 60-70
3. Cambell, C.J., Laherrere, J.H., 1998. The end of cheap oil. Scientific American, (March), 78-83.
4. Gupta, S. 2009. Algae: A most suitable tool for arresting global warming and sourcing bio-diesel; International Symposium on Carbon Management and Climate Change and Role of Applied Geochemistry in Mineral Exploration [ISCMCCRAGME]. 24-27 November 2009, Abstracts. NGRI, Hyderabad. Indian Society of Applied Geochemists [ISAG]. p.19.
5. Antia, D.D.J., 2009. Polymerisation Theory (the catalytic formation of oil from CO₂ and CH₄): Application of an Accelerated Geological Process to Remove Carbon Oxides from Flue Gases and use Carbon Oxide Sequestration to Produce Oil in Sedimentary Sequences. ISCMCCRAGME, 24-27 November 2009, Abstracts. NGRI, Hyderabad. ISAG. p.1-2.
6. Antia, D. D. J., 2009/2010. Polymerisation Theory – Formation of hydrocarbons in sedimentary strata (hydrates, clays, sandstones, carbonates, evaporites, volcanoclastics) from CH₄ and CO₂: Part I: Polymerisation concepts, kinetics, sources of hydrogen, and redox environment; Part II: Formation and Interpretation of Stage 1 to Stage 5 Oils; Part III: Hydrocarbon expulsion from the hydrodynamic flow regimes contained within a generating pressure mound; Part IV: Polymerisation modelling of sequestered carbon dioxide and waste organic liquids to hydrocarbons. Indian Journal of Petroleum Geology, 17 (1), 49-86; 17 (2), 11-70; 18(1); 18 (2).
7. IPCC, 2007 (ed. Metz, B. et al.) Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Technical Summary. Cambridge University Press.
8. Antia, D.D.J., 2008. Oil polymerisation and fluid expulsion from low temperature, low maturity, over pressured sediments. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 31, 263 – 282.

Sir, In his item “Down-under doubts”, (Geoscientist, January 2010) Joe McCall has called for a statement of Australian scientists’ “doubts about climate change models” and for “a concise reply from an acknowledged expert”. I do not think this can realistically be achieved, but it is good that this issue has been raised.

As an on-line perusal of The Australian newspaper (quoted by Joe McCall) and related titles will show, climate science has become highly politicised in Australia, to a degree not seen in the UK. A number of scientists in that country (and elsewhere) have entered the fray as aspiring opinion-formers, in some cases appearing to have an agenda to cause confusion about climate change rather than to advance the science or to educate non-scientists. Furthermore, the areas of dispute are very diverse, ranging from predictions of sea-level rise on specific coastlines to whether CO₂ is an effective forcing agent for global warming at all. I do not see how a single statement of ‘doubting’ Australian scientists’ views could be obtained, and I very much doubt that a single ‘acknowledged expert’ could be identified who would be widely accepted as authoritative.

As geoscientists, I think we owe it to ourselves, and to those we interact with, to be well-informed about humanity’s ability to influence the global climate. However, I suspect that many non-academic geoscientists like myself, who do not have the time or resources to read deeply into the literature, are at little advantage over journalists and others who seek to interpret climate science to the public and our elected representatives. I wish I could sustain an informed critique of those who criticise the ‘consensus’ predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as being either exaggerated or too conservative, but I cannot (not in detail, anyway; and it’s the details that some of the ‘sceptics’ tend to focus on). I therefore look to the Geological Society and other such bodies to provide independent and authoritative statements on aspects of climate change science within their relevant remits. Unfortunately, the Royal Society’s statement of March 2005 is now out of date and, in view of its copious citation of the 2001 IPCC reports, I suspect it is rather unconvincing for those who take issue with the ‘consensus’ science approach of the IPCC. So what is to be done?

Firstly, I think the Geological Society should remind Fellows of their ethical duties as scientists to avoid making deliberately misleading statements about climate science (or indeed any other type of science), driven by non-scientific (e.g. political) agendas. The Society has, after all, seen it necessary to produce a Position Statement repudiating “Creation Science (attempts by Young Earth Creationists to gain acceptance for what they misrepresent in public as corroborative empirical evidence for their view)” as “a trespass upon the domain of science”. I do not think it is stretching a point to see the tactics of some seemingly scientific deniers of anthropogenic climate change as being akin to (albeit more sophisticated than) those of ‘creation scientists’.

Secondly, the Society should not get embroiled in controversy about climate modelling, but should state that predictive modelling of climate change is a necessary endeavour, albeit one which pushes beyond the boundaries of ‘normal’ science. The same can be said of other endeavours such as long-term post-closure performance assessment modelling for deep geological repositories for radioactive waste. The Society could also usefully state that in such endeavours, ‘consensus’ elicitation approaches as used by the IPCC are needed in order to provide outputs that are useful to policy/decision-makers.

Thirdly, the Society should produce independent and authoritative statements on what is and is not known about key topics which are clearly geological in nature and are the subject of dispute in the context of climate change. These statements should be intelligible to non-specialists, including scientifically literate journalists, but also well supported by references to the scientific literature. To demonstrate independence, such statements should be obtained from and agreed by as broad as possible a spectrum of expert scientists, who should be drawn mainly from outside the climate change research ‘community’ in general and the IPCC in particular, and preferably including scientists employed or funded by the fossil fuel industries. Of course, if those drawing up the statements were to agree that the IPCC 4th Assessment Working Group 1 report presents an accurate summary on a specific key topic, this should be stated.