Letters 2011

Dialogue needed to gain enhanced value from geotechnical risk management in construction

From Paul Maliphant (Rec’d & Pub’d 7 December 2011)

Sir, Ten years ago, Prof Chris Clayton wrote the seminal document Managing Geotechnical Risk. Since then we have entered a recession, are under pressure to reduce construction costs and adapt to a low carbon economy. Such changes, on their own, introduce additional risk; but many still feel that geotechnical risk continues to be sidelined, despite clear evidence that ground is hazardous and can impact significantly on the cost and delivery of projects. Conceptual and numerical ground models and geotechnical risk registers all target reductions in geotechnical risk (and therefore cost). Yet concern persists that these are still not at the heart of the decision-making process.

Claire Symes, in an editorial comment published in Ground Engineering  (November 2011), spoke for many in the industry when she urged us to improve our understanding of the needs and difficulties of other sectors and stakeholders. Action is needed now, not only to address the understanding and impact of geotechnical risk, but also to place this risk in context - through dialogue with other construction professionals.

Initiating this dialogue is the purpose of a seminar to take place on 20th February 2012, at Burlington House. This is intended to act as a platform for construction professionals to present their views of project risk and help place geotechnical risk in a wider context. It is the first of a number of activities aimed at better integration of geotechnical risk in the decision-making process planned for 2012 by a review group led by Barry Clarke, (University of Leeds, Vice President ICE) and Paul Maliphant, (Halcrow, Vice President Geological Society) in conjunction with Constructing Excellence. It will help construction professionals understand the relative importance of geotechnical risk and how the value of ground investigation, design and construction can be brought home to others.

The geotechnical community has, for many years, argued the case for improved ground investigations, for developing ground models and employing engineers and geologists who are demonstrably competent in ground engineering. Yet there is much still to be done in getting these messages across, and then acted upon. The case for improvement in 1993 (articulated in Without Site Investigations Ground is a Hazard) was supported by evidence of cost overrun, contract delay, failure to perform as expected, and even catastrophic failure. Since that time the construction industry has changed. We need to gather new evidence to demonstrate the continuing importance of ground engineering to reducing risk.

Thornton unearthed

From Peter Bennett (Rec’d 7; Pub’d 21 September 2011)

Sir, I enjoyed reading about Richard Thornton's contributions to African geology and Livingstone's Zambezi Expedition. Readers may be interested to know that Thornton's grave in the Shire Valley was 'rediscovered' in the 1960s. By appropriate coincidence this fell to an English geologist carrying out systematic mapping for the Geological Survey of Malawi. I was shown the grave in the early 1970s during a secondment to that Survey from BGS. By that time the grave had been adopted by the Malawian authorities, and a headstone with an explanatory inscription had been erected. Perhaps some reader may know whether it is still being tended?

Richard Boak replies (9 November 2011):

Sir, Having already submitted the article about Richard Thornton, I was fortunate enough to be sent to Malawi on a short consultancy contract. On a day off, I managed to visit Thornton’s grave, overlooking the Shire River just north of Chikwawa. Although marked on the tourist map of Malawi, the grave is not easy to find, and I needed considerable help from the locals. I’m pleased to report that it’s still in good condition (see photo), beneath a baobab tree, and it was an emotional moment for me.

Geology’s holistic perspective

From Julian Vearncombe (Rec’d & Pub’d 9 November 2011)

Sir, Emlyn Koster writes (Geoscientist 21.9 October 2011) “geology’s holistic perspective should become integral to many important societal and scientific issues is long overdue”. Is he ignorant, therefore, of the contribution of geologists, and that we are - and have long been - indispensable to the needs of society? Geology’s holistic perspective is all around us, it is our economic and social wealth.

The world is currently going through the largest ever increase in societal wealth. Hundreds of millions of people globally (not just Brazil, Russia, India and China) are going through the transformation from poverty to middle class (the so-called $5000 threshold) with the positive environmental and social implications that this brings. This wonderful economic phenomenon has come about as a result of a positive feedback loop driven by demand for housing and modern necessities such as refrigerators, air-conditioners, bicycles, telephones, computers and cars.  All require metals that are found, evaluated and mined by geologists and engineers.

Central to this world-wide economic transformation is a robust minerals industry. At the epicentre of that industry are geologists, supplying energy minerals, iron for building, copper for electricity collection and distribution, gold as a currency hedge, specialist minerals for modern communication devices and the rare metals critical for next-generation green energy supply.

As the bumper sticker says “if it can’t be grown, it has to be mined”. Geology already has a critical societal, economic and scientific role.

Alphabet soup

From Iain A Williamson (Rec'd & Pub'd 8 November 2011)

Sir, In several recent letters in Geoscientist, namely John Gahan's 'Volcanoes and innocence' and associated comments, abbreviations are used without being preceded by the full version of the name.  While obvious abbreviations such as BGS might pass muster in this publication, it is surely inexcusable?

Editor replies: Apologies if the alphabet soup of climate change has become a little thick of late.  Iain is right; we normally do employ the rule of placing abbreviations in brackets after first use of the full version in any piece.  However, in Letters particularly (where space is very tight) we take a judgement about familiarity.  Iain cites 'BGS' (British Geological Survey) as an abbreviation that we can reasonably expect our readers to know without explanation, for example.  If we were writing for the general public we would not take this view. 

The letters to which Iain refers include some other abbreviations of verbose titles and terms, namely IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) whose use, even once, saves several lines.  We took the view that 'IPCC' ought to be familiar to everyone who keeps up with current affairs.  'AGW' I accept is probably only familiar to those familiar with the jargon of climate change and should indeed have been explained in full.

'Core' values safe at BGS

From John Ludden* and Denis Peach^@ (Rec'd & Pub'd 3 November 2011)

Sir, Martin Culshaw and Mick Lee, both former members of the British Geological Survey (BGS) executive committee, recently published an article in “Soapbox” in which they discussed their views of the core role of the BGS.

We invite Geoscientist readers to review the BGS four year strategy which is unchanged since its development, review and final publication in spring 2009.

The strategy highlights the change from systematic survey to responsive survey which BGS will have completed by the end of the strategy period, nevertheless at the same time we will ensure that the 2D survey of the UK is refreshed and where necessary new survey completed. The BGS strategy also introduces a strong focus on remapping the UK shelf.

The substantial change to BGS science that is described in the BGS strategy is introducing “more understanding of the observations”. This means developing conceptual geological models, quantifying these so they can be used to develop quantitative process models based on the underlying observations in order to provide solutions to problems and make predictions that are of value to BGS stakeholders, including the UK public and government.

The new strategy has led to some changes in the balance of geological expertise and BGS total FTE (full time equivalents) has decreased in general as a response to funding cuts and also changes in administration of the UK research councils. The workforce has decreased from ~780 to ~630 FTE over the past four years. The majority of the losses have been in administrative and science support services. In the past two years BGS has lost 52 scientists and hired about 45. Consistent with our strategy, there has been a shift in skills specification of the new scientists hired, from geology and palaeontology to geophysics, marine geology, Earth Observation and process modelling.

BGS will receive advice from a newly created Advisory Committee which includes very senior representatives of industry, government and academia; this committee has replaced the BGS Board. In 2009 our parent department of Business, Innovation and Skills created the BGS Government Advisory Panel that allows far closer interaction with government departments than BGS has had for decades.

BGS will decrease the number of staff in the data and information areas in proportion to other science areas, while preserving the knowledge exchange (KE) roles. Indeed, BGS has launched a number of innovative information products in its move to fully digital data delivery of its products and to more open and freely available data. Output metrics such as web hits, digital downloads of reports, maps and scientific publications have significantly increased despite a declining workforce. In the rapidly changing world of data availability and one in which the consumer wants rapid answers, we believe we have a very proactive information and KE policy.

The NERC delivery plan requires “transformation and integration” of the delivery of its National Capability science and facilities and BGS is a the heart of the current and ongoing discussions concerning how NERC research centres can better deliver integrated science. The particular role of research centres is twofold: delivering on the impact agenda for earth and environmental sciences and providing underpinning infrastructure for universities and government. Further ambitions are to achieve cost savings through shared support and science services and to produce new science through joint programming. BGS is on the leading edge of a number of initiatives.

*Executive Director, British Geological Survey; @ Chief Scientist, British Geological Survey

Collecting bans

From Joe McCall (Rec’d and Pub’d 1 November 2011)

Sir, While I agree with David Martill's argument (Geoscientist 20.10 November 2011) about restricting collection of fossils by genuine researchers, there is another aspect of this question. In the 1960s, when I was for a decade curating meteorites (unpaid!) for the Western Australian Museum, we were bedevilled by American commercial dealers. We had a fine but neglected collection by E S Simpson, which I was restoring with John de Laeter, and wanted to direct the numerous finds then being made, particularly by rabbit trappers on the Nullarbor, to the Museum.

I was one of the three scientists who persuaded the State Government to pass a law that meteorites were the property of the State. I have no regrets about this, for the Western Australian Museum collection is now world renowned: it would not have been so large and diverse, but for this law. We always encouraged exchanges, and I carried out exchanges in London, New York and Russia, and released material for research purposes. Meteorites are handy because they can be sliced into several pieces: Mundrabilla slices are in more than a dozen museums, including a large slice at the foot of the escalator in the NHM, South Kensington. Fossils, alas cannot, be sectioned!

My point is that legislative restriction to prevent commercial depredation is on occasion necessary, though release for research should not be impeded. In fact many commercial dealers in meteorites are nowadays very responsible.

They also serve – 2

From Dick Selley (Rec’d 11 & Pub’d 12 October 2011)

Sir, I share Nigel Davis’s concern (see letter below, 26 August) that the Geological Society should have an award for ‘the ordinary member who perhaps does not publish, does not move the knowledge base forward, but does take what we have all learnt and uses it as their every day tool to excel in their particular field’. This was why in 1998 Council introduced the Distinguished Service Award, whose terms of reference state:

"This award is made annually to an individual who has made a significant contribution to geoscience and the geoscience community by virtue of their professional, administrative, organisational or promotional activities."

From Alan Lord (Rec'd & Pub'd 8 November 2011)

Sir, As a 'committee-sitter' with well-polished trousers but, alas, no medal to show for it, I welcome the chance to respond to Nigel Davis (Geoscientist 21.09 October 2011). Almost all parties to the Awards system are elected; the Awards Committee consists of Council members plus others who are co-opted to reflect discipline and industry/academe coverage. Any Fellow can make nominations for awards (though, sadly, few do). I agree that many modern career paths require achievement in both ‘research’ and ‘service’, and this is reflected in, for example, the Coke Medals’ terms. Nor has the Awards Committee forgotten about the Distinguished Service Award; though nominations are woefully few. Who better than the Fellowship at large to generate them? Finally, I hope Nigel will be pleased to hear that the Awards Committee is recommending the removal of age limits, and their replacement by ‘years of career service’.

‘Sensitive filling’ lacks teeth

From Ian Moxon (Rec’d 11, Pub’d 12 October 2011)

Sir, I read with interest and a degree of concern Sarah Day's article (Geoscientist 21.09, p07) regarding a recent Europe-wide survey of retail petrol filling stations.

The article states that the survey of nearly 86,000 retail filling station sites in Europe has found that 14% of the stations are classified as category 1 to 2, the highest sensitivity categories for at least one type of environmental receptor. The report then quotes Dr Jonathan Smith the as saying, "there are a small number [of retail stations] where investing in preventative measures would be advisable" and that the results of the survey will help focus on " those few stations which are in highly sensitive areas"

Fourteen percent of 86,000 sites means that around 12,000 are in highly sensitive locations. In my view this is not a ‘small number’ or ‘a few’, but represent a very large number of high-risk, potentially seriously polluting sites.

The article goes on to say that the areas with highest concentration of sensitivity include Southern England. Indeed in the South East of England 70% of public water supply is provided by groundwater abstraction. Anyone who has been involved with the clean-up of groundwater polluted from the many petrol retail sites located on sensitive UK aquifers will no doubt confirm what a major impact even relatively small leaks can have.

The survey assessed only the proximity of stations to receptors without including information on the integrity of the station or its maintenance: but then Dr Smith is again quoted as saying: "the study shows that the industry is acting proactively and responsibly towards retail filling station safety and environmental protection".

Perhaps the article should have referred to the abstract of the original report, which ends: “The results indicate that the environmental sensitivity of retail filling stations is highly variable, and that only a relatively small proportion has the potential to cause impact on groundwater abstractions, surface water or to designated ecological receptors. Accordingly, a site-specific risk-based approach to the design and operation of retail filling stations provides the most proportionate and sustainable basis for their management. In addition, the research provides a tool for both single retail filling station operators and the oil industry as a whole to identify areas of higher environmental sensitivity, encouraging the focusing of investment in preventive measures where it is most needed.”

Sepiolite nearer home

From Graham West (Rec’d & Pub’d 28 September 2011)

Sir, I found Sarah Day’s article on the use of sepiolite from Madrid in Spain as cat litter (Geoscientist, September 2011) most interesting, reporting an unusual application of the clay mineral. However, UK readers might like to know sepiolite occurs nearer home in the English Keuper Marl (now called the Mercia Mudstone). In the 1960s my late colleague at the Road Research Laboratory, Michael Dumbleton and I identified sepiolite in three samples of Keuper Marl from sites in the M5 in Worcestershire, during an examination of soils exposed during the motorway construction programme.

Sepiolite was found in quantities ranging from 10 to 40%. At the time, we were more excited by the identification of palygorskite (5 to 10%) in samples from two other sites, this being the first time (we believed) that palygorskite had been reported from the main body of the English Keuper Marl. The presence of sepiolite and palygorskite, both hydrated magnesium silicates, is consistent with a highly magnesian environment of formation.

Reference:

• Dumbleton, M J & West, G. 1966. Studies of the Keuper Marl: mineralogy. Road Research Laboratory Report No. 40. Crowthorne.

Cognitive dissonance and disposal

From Martin Lack* (Rec’d & Pub’d 21 September 2011)

Sir, Neil Chapman, Julia West and Jordi Bruno are spot-on in seeing commonality between the problems of disposing of both radioactive waste and carbon dioxide underground. They are also right to highlight the urgency of any action to do the latter (if it is to be done at all). The reasons for my scepticism are twofold. First, it is technically questionable to plan to dispose of such waste and potentially morally questionable even to think of doing so. Second, seeking to dispose of carbon dioxide underground is primarily a device to make the dirty burning of coal seem clean and is treating the symptoms of a problem (our addiction to fossil fuels) rather that tackling the cause.

When Leon Festinger published his Theory of Cognitive Dissonance in 1957, he cited the mental discomfort of people who continue smoking even though they know doing so may kill them. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it is absolutely right that we should feel uncomfortable about the ongoing oil exploration in the Arctic and/or any proposal to bury the problem rather than stop perpetuating it.

* Martin Lack writes a blog entitled: Lack of Environment - A truly biospheric blog on the politics of the environment

Volcanoes and hot gas

From Martin Lack (Rec'd & Pub'd 4 October 2011)

Sir, I note that in his determination [see letter under this headline below] to defend Professor Ian Plimer, Mr Gahan appears to appeal to unreason and the marketplace of ideas that says that all opinions are equally valid (no matter how many times some of them may have been discredited).

I should therefore, on behalf of what I sincerely believe to be the silent majority of the membership, applaud the Society, Professor Summerhayes, and this magazine for standing up to the highly-vocal and persistent minority who, for whatever reason, choose to repeat the discredited arguments of non climate-scientists. It all makes me wonder whether they would, if unfortunate enough to contract a serious illness, go to a civil engineer for a diagnosis? (Not that I have anything against civil engineers of course!)

They also serve

From Nigel Davis (Rec’d & Pub’d 26 August 2011)

Sir, I note that yet another year is upon us when the Society awards medals to the good and the great in the geological world. With some dismay I see that most awards are again being given to a tight circle of academics and committee sitters. All very worthy, and I am sure they have earned the laurels placed upon them. However, have not these demigods amassed praise enough? They are well known in the science from their findings, publications and lectures, and are names that are recognised throughout the Society. The giving of Society Awards to them may be likened to giving medals to generals. It is done because convention dictates.

I am well aware that the field of reference of the various Society awards limits the committee, and I do not in any way wish to take away from the recipients any recognition of their contribution. But is there not a way that the ordinary rank and file of the society can be recognised? I know that there will be the temptation for companies to push their people forward because it will look good to clients or shareholders; but I am sure competent scrutineers can see through such games. If such and award were established it would be an opportunity for the Society to award privates and NCOs in the geological world. Where are their campaign medals?

We read every month in the obituaries of the significant work undertaken by colleagues during their working lives. What a pity this was not recognised when they could enjoy the plaudits of their peers whist they were alive. Is it not time that the Society set up an award for the ordinary member who perhaps does not publish, does not move the knowledge base forward, but does take what we have all learnt and uses it as their everyday tool to excel in their particular field?

L’Aquila earthquake

From David Alexander* (Rec’d & Pub’d 15 August 2011)

Sir, I read the 'Soapbox' by Russell Corbyn in Geoscientist with dismay. I am depressed that the controversy over the judicial investigation of Italian Earth scientists has rumbled on for so long, as I have seldom seen a more ill-informed debate. Unfortunately, this business has been analysed and discussed according to a form of logic that in my opinion does not really apply in this case.

Obviously, I cannot comment on whether magistrates are likely to find anyone culpable (although I think it unlikely). However, the judicial action was not about whether earthquakes can be predicted. That is a red herring. The controversy centres on measures taken in the aftermath of the 6 April 2009 earthquake at L'Aquila, central Italy, which left 308 people dead, 1500 injured and 67,000 homeless.

Prior to that, in 1703, l'Aquila city (population 72,800) had endured a major earthquake that killed at least 6000 people. Yet the macrozonation of seismic risk that prevailed from 1982 until 2008 placed it only in the 'moderate' category, despite the visible presence of active faults in the immediate area and a long history of serious earthquake damage. This fact is all the more anomalous considering that most of the less populous municipalities located around the city were placed in the 'high hazard' category, and there are few, if any, geological reasons for considering L'Aquila to be situated in a lacuna of seismic attenuation.

In reality, it was very convenient to designate l'Aquila as only moderately seismic. This made it cheaper to build there. The population of the city grew at a steady 5000 per decade in the post-War boom years. Many were housed in apartment buildings that collapsed in the 2009 earthquake, which seriously damaged 100,000 buildings. Indeed, casualties were heavily concentrated in buildings constructed in the 1960s and 1970s.

Building codes were not necessarily flouted, but they were obviously far too weak - even bearing in mind contemporary gaps in knowledge of local geological processes. Hence, commentators have suggested that either there was some form of collusion or the seismic classifiers were unable to resist political pressure - not an auspicious beginning to the present story.

The 2009 earthquake was the main shock in a swarm of tremors that began in October 2008 and did not attenuate for almost a year. In early 2009, eminent seismologists in Italy claimed that earthquake swarms in the central Apennines are highly unlikely to include anomalously large shocks. That affirmation is contradicted by the historical evidence.

The real controversy began when an amateur researcher observed large local increases in radon gas emissions. His prediction was wrong by about one week and 50km, but nevertheless an earthquake disaster did occur. The Italian Government's reaction before the 6 April earthquake was to announce that the predictor would be "sued for punitive damages for creating unnecessary public alarm" (yet he did not release is prediction to the public, only to the scientists and administrators).

One week before the earthquake, L'Aquila city hosted an extraordinary meeting of the government's Major Risks Commission, composed of scientists, administrators and politicians. The minutes were subsequently published by a national magazine in the name of investigative journalism. The conclusion of the meeting, set down in black and white was that "there is no reason why a sequence of low magnitude earthquakes [in the l'Aquila area] could be considered precursors of a much larger event."

One week later, the earthquake struck at 03:32 hrs. It was preceded at 00:30 by a large and alarming foreshock that sent many people out of doors. In one of the local towns, civil protection authorities sent vehicles with loudspeakers out to calm people's fears and induce them to return indoors. Most of them did so, and subsequently in that town five died and 40 were injured. It should be noted that all this preceded a further scandal, in which Italian Civil Protection was investigated for the alleged irregular expenditure or possible misappropriation of €10.6bn of public money.

It is romantic to associate the present situation with the trials of Galileo, but it is hardly appropriate. Of course, it is equally inappropriate to indict people on the basis of a hindsight that they did not have at the time they made decisions and took action. Nevertheless, the manifest failure to invoke the precautionary principle was noted by the Italian people who demanded some redress for lack of preparedness.

It is one thing to be unable to predict earthquakes, but sending out a wrong or unjustified message is something quite different.

* Prof. David Alexander, Chief Senior Scientist, Global Risk Forum GRF Davos, Promenade 35, CH-7270 Davos Platz, Switzerland

Environmental shocker

From Tony Smith (Rec'd & Pub'd 13 July 2011)

Sir, Sarah Day quotes our President’s astonishing assertion on the environmental record of the hydrocarbon industry [Geoscientist 21.6 p07 ]. I challenge Dr. Lovell to cite a single example of a state where environmental legislation has been introduced, maintained or enforced without the concerted, systematic and sustained opposition of the hydrocarbon industry.

In the UK, it required over a century of piecemeal legislation, generally stimulated by the latest disaster, before our coal industry was forced to adopt comprehensive policies addressing good practice. In the US, there has never been adequate, national environmental legislation, and the EPA has never had the funds or the staff to enforce basic standards.

An elementary knowledge of the legacy of historical exploitation in the landscape would acknowledge Aberfan, Appalachia and the "bings" of the Midland Valley. In global terms, the employees and residents of the Gulf of Mexico, the Middle East, the North Sea, Spain and Alaska might query the adequacy of their environmental protection or safety at work.

The introduction and enforcement of basic environmental legislation takes generations of functioning democracy, and universal education; worldwide action starts from there.

Which planet was Dr Lovell referring to?

Bryan Lovell replies: The context here is UK, not global. The relevant record in this context is the post oil-shale, UK onshore oil industry: Wytch Farm, rather than West Lothian. The broader environmental issue of the folly of using a deal of shale gas without carbon capture and storage was emphasised by Tim Yeo in presenting the Parliamentary Committee's report, and quoted by Sarah Day. Can shale gas be taken safely out of the ground? Yes, given care and cost. Can that gas be burnt in quantities and its carbon then dumped into the atmosphere with impunity? No.

Water - and hydrogeologists - not everywhere

From Chris Everitt (Rec’d & Pub’d 13 July 2011)

Sir, July was a most interesting edition of Geoscientist - nice to see hydrogeology in the news. Timely, as well: for I was recently informed by the School of Earth and Environmental Science, Leeds University, that their MSc in Hydrogeology is to close, along with Geochemistry and Environmental Geochemistry, from September 2012, “due to low student numbers on these courses… exacerbated by the removal of NERC support for studentships”. I am advised by colleagues that courses at Birmingham and Cardiff may suffer the same fate, and wonder about others. If hydrogeology really is so important, whence the hydrogeologists of tomorrow?

Nuclear meltdown

From Damon de Laszlo (Rec’d & Pub’d 13 July 2010)

Sir, Having just joined the Geological Society, I was much heartened to read your May editorial - perhaps the only editorial that I have read in a serious magazine that addresses the nuclear energy hysteria. It seems to be forgotten by politicians of all shades, that electricity is the oxygen of modern day economies. Also that it takes 5+ years to build power stations.

From Richard Clarke (Rec’d & Pub’d 17 May 2011)

Sir, I regret to say that your May editorial seems to me complacent, ill-informed and partial, written as it is at a time when the Chairman of the World Association of Nuclear Operators has publicly admitted that he fears that nuclear energy may be "finished" if there is another accident like Fukushima (Nature 472, p 274, 21/4/2011).

Each such accident sterilises an area the size of a small country and pollutes (ask Welsh sheep farmers) a vastly larger area. In global terms Fukushima has to be considered as far more significant than the tragic consequences of the tsunami elsewhere in Japan. The sad fact is that nuclear operators have seldom acted on the basis of "good advice" from geologists or from anybody else. Nor do they use good engineering practice - where are the gas-cooled reactors that the UK pioneered but which are now dumped in favour of demonstrably less safe water-cooled types promoted by USA operators? Where are the deep repositories that we have been promised for decades? Go and visit Drigg; get beyond the "visitor centre", and learn the size of the problem that the UK, and every other country's, short-termist politicians face but are unable to tackle.

The problem is far greater than the threat posed by those on-site storage ponds, great though that is. Of course we should have nuclear energy but it must be safe enough for new units to be built, "CHP" of course, on the site of Battersea power station or beside the railway station in Edinburgh, for example. Apart from anything else this would allow regional heating to use the c. 70% of the power now wasted by cooling and along long transmission lines and help achieve our "green" targets more than any number of ghastly windmills.

From Robert Freer FICE FIStructE MIEE (Rec'd & Pub'd 18 May 2011)

Sir, Congratulations on an excellent editorial.  I particularly like the comparison of sunshine and waves to moonshine and hot air. I hope to have opportunities to repeat that!

Cycle lame

From David Smith (Rec’d & Pub’d 13 June
2011)

Sir, Robin Bailey (Spare me the cycles!, Soapbox, Geoscientist June 2011) refers to Sander’s Rule, a heuristic routinely used to support the claims of cyclochronology. The ‘rule’ expressed the belief of B. Sander (1936) that cyclic processes are much more likely to occur in nature than non-cyclic processes. Sander argued that:

1. Equal spacing of sedimentary rhythms probably implies periodicity in time; and
2. Unequal spacing of lithological repetitions does not rule out periodicity in time.

In support of Bailey’s cyclo-scepticism, I propose that Sander’s ‘rule’ is in fact better regarded as a creed. For followers of the alternative doctrine, that the stratigraphic record is almost entirely the outcome of stochastic processes, then one’s creed can (no less logically) be stated thus:

1. Apparent sedimentary cyclicity does not have to indicate cyclicity in time;
2. Absence of sedimentary cyclicity almost always rules out cyclicity in time.

Schwarzacher’s (1973, 1975) mathematical statement of Sander’s Rule has been widely mistaken as a ‘proof’. However, Schwarzacher’s analysis (1) was explicitly dependent on a number of assumptions; (2) was applied only to a particular model of stratigraphic accumulation; and (3) yielded a very restricted result.

The question then arises, is there any a priori reason (other than prejudice) for choosing between Sander’s Rule and my proposed converse of it, or indeed for proposing either of them in the first place? Does either ‘rule’ do any more than express the model of the record preferred by its proposer?

References

• Sander, B. 1936. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Anlagerungsgefuge. Mineral. Petrogr. Mitt. 48, 27-139. English translation: Contribution to the study of depositional fabrics: rhythmically deposited Triassic limestones and dolomites, by E.B. Knopf, published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1951.
• Schwarzacher, W. 1973. Sander's rule of rhythmic record. Mineralogy Petrology, 20 (4), 296-302.
• Schwarzacher, W. 1975. Sedimentation Models and Quantitative Stratigraphy. Elsevier, 382 pp.

Resignation and abdication

From Mike O’Hara (Rec’d & Pub’d 7 June 2011)

Sir, In 1963 we proposed that orthopyroxene must coexist with nepheline -normative liquids at intermediate pressures [1] and later that year we published the first determination of 4-phase lherzolite melting in CMAS at atmospheric pressure [2], an analysis of garnet-lherzolite melting at 3 GPa, and three determinations of equilibria in eclogite-peridotite systems [3-6] which showed that there was an eclogite thermal divide separating the compositions analogous to (picritic) partial melts of upper mantle materials from those of the abundant erupted tholeitic Ocean Island and Continental Flood Basalts. Prediction of [2] involved development of a method for reading pseudobinary phase equilibria within quarternary systems, published in 1969 [7]

In 1965 [8] I proposed a petrogenetic scheme, utilising [7] to obtain the andesitic composition and low temperature of the initial partial melting products of spinel-lherzolite at 1 GPa in CMASH from published data [8, pp35-37], integrating what was known about dry peridotite-basalt equilibria in CMAS between atmospheric pressure and 3 GPa [8], and stressing that common OIB are cotectic at low pressure [9] - This latter inconsistent with common erupted basalts being primary magmas [8]

In 1968 [10] I published an updated review which presented the ROXZY data projection [10,11], integrated experimental data from 1964 to 1967 into [8], and revised the view that andesites were direct partial melts of wet peridotite. Separately [12], I pointed out that most MORB did not have orthopyroxene on their liquidus at any pressure and, therefore, could NOT be primary magmas. These findings, heavily criticised at the time [13], have been proved substantially correct.

Five organisations have honoured this pioneering work in the CMASH system [14] to another individual. Attempts (2006-2010) to rectify the situation quietly having foundered, I have resigned from the Society and abdicated the Murchison Medal (30.10.10). This also has been treated so circumspectly that not even the secretary charged 6 months later with recovering unpaid fees was aware of it.

References cited

 

The Anthropocene – a sedimentary perspective

From Tony Brown (Rec’d & Pub’d 24 May 2011)

Sir, I suspect that I am not the only geoscientist who hoped the ‘Anthropocene’ debate might peter out. It is now clear this will not happen, following the decision to initiate an Anthropocene Working Party by the Geological Society’s Stratigraphy Commission, the May 2011 meeting and subsequent media coverage.

The debate resolves into two questions: do we ‘need’ an additional Epoch, and if we do, when did it start? The argument “for” is simple. The magnitude of human activity on Earth has become an overwhelming signal in the geological record, compared to the forces of nature which produced that record. Furthermore, defining an Anthropocene has political expediency. Since the proposal is for a geological Epoch within the Cenozoic Era, both the arguments for it and its demarcation must be geological.

So the question becomes: Do we see a major change in the rock record? The answer to this is “yes”. Geologists and geomorphologists worldwide (e.g. Shotton, UK; Gilbert, USA) have demonstrated through the research on Holocene valley-fills, that nearly every river valley shows a dramatic increase in the rate, and often style, of sedimentation during the mid-late Holocene. This global marker horizon is also recorded in lakes and the continental shelf. It has associated type-fossils (domesticates) and is well dated using various techniques including ¹⁴C and OSL. It is diachronous (c. 6000-3000 BP), but the start of the Anthropocene should be diachronous.

This chronostratigraphic boundary must be seriously considered, rather than an arbitrary point on the population curve or the very recent rise in human-released radionuclides.

* Director of the Palaeoenvironmental Laboratory, University of Southampton (PLUS)
Tony.Brown@soton.ac.uk

From Jonathan Cowie (Rec’d & Pub’d 18 May 2011)

Sir, A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the potential impact of early human agriculture (5 kya) on atmospheric methane can only have been minimal at best, but alas (sigh) a few 'scientists' would not let actual numbers get in the way of a good story. Fortunately we now have more than a back-of-the-envelope calculation:
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7332/abs/nature09739.html (Singarayer J. S., et al (2011) Late Holocene methane rise caused by orbitally controlled increase in tropical sources, Nature 470 (82-85).)

So hopefully that nonsense can now be put to rest!

However.... Lead in Greenland ice-cores 2000 years ago would be a marker for human influence but Greenland ice is geologically transient and so not a viable long-term marker. Radioactive isotopes in sediments since 1945 would be a long-lasting marker for the anthropocene, as would the carbon-12 excursion found in the late 20th Century. (If the latter is good enough for marking the onset of the Eocene then it should be good enough for the proposed Anthropocene.)

From Prof. Philip Allen's blog, earthliterally.blogspot.com

Paradise Lost - The Age of Man?

When John Milton wrote (Paradise Lost, 1667) “Accuse not Nature, she hath done her part; Do thou but thine”, I doubt that he quite foresaw what is increasingly being called the Anthropocene, or ‘The Age of Man’ (see http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/age-of-man/kolbert-text).

Nature has indeed done her part to bring the world to this point, towards an increasing consciousness and self-determination of Man . It is difficult to find any sizeable chunk of the planet that has not succumbed in some way, subtle or dramatic, to the handiwork of modern humans. In 200,000 years we have left our unmistakable imprint, and it is accelerating. The coral reefs of the open ocean are in distress from rising water temperature and acidity, caused in turn by emissions of greenhouse gases through the activities of Man. There are so many dams on the world’s waterways that natural or pristine rivers are a thing of the past. Many of the world’s deltas, the dumping ground of conveyor belts of river-borne sediment, and the home of billions of people, are sinking beneath the waves. The oceans’ fisheries are depleted, some of them to the point of exhaustion. Biodiversity is undergoing a big crunch, with unprecedented rates of extinction of species. And human population continues to go through the roof, from 3 billion to nearly 7 billion in the last half-century. So pervasive, so systemic, so global and yet so local are these impacts that many believe we should label our current time the Anthropocene. Some also believe that by labeling it so, we wake up to the reality of our responsibility for the future. For Nature has opened her eyes, and has for the first time seen herself, through us poor humans, the failed masterpiece of creation.

My walk to the conference at the Geological Society of London on the topic of the Anthropocene (11 May 2011) was not extraordinary in any kind of way. From the stucco-fronted classical squares of Kensington, with their neatly kept gardens, past the memorials to a diminutive queen, or rather to her German husband, along the margins of one of the world’s great parks, where dog walkers chat and joggers with white earphones jog, and mounted cavalry take shining horses to train in saw-dusted enclosures. There was nothing unusual about these scenes of peace and order. And there was nothing unusual about the disheveled man in the subway with a little whistle, which he played badly and intermittently, as if his musical attention span extended to a mere 4 bars. He stood beside a grimy sleeping bag that lay above flattened cardboard boxes, comprising a stratigraphy of homelessness. On the other side of the subway the world changed from green to urban-grey, save for a hotel on a corner with a veritable jungle growing up it, a Living Wall ten storeys high. The Living Wall screams at you that it is an anthropogenic biome, carefully designed and planted by Man, and watered and cared for by Man, and rather wonderful. It is a human ecology, a paradise on a street corner, not more than a quarter of a mile from the Geological Society, my destination this fresh day in early May.

Recognising what you have done and owning up to it is a cathartic process that is necessary to go through if you want to make anything better, whether it’s spilling red wine on the new carpet or thoroughly messing up our disappearing world. But it is a good idea to separate the analysis of the impact of one’s actions from the separate question of what we should do about it, because these are two different conversations, the first being scientific, the other involving a bit of everything, preferably including wisdom. Although these two conversations are linked, the first should inform the second. There are hidden dangers. If we get the scientific analysis wrong, we do not have the correct basis for making decisions about the way we manage the world in the future and perhaps carry around a flawed philosophical position guiding our actions. But the bigger danger is that the second conversation is hijacked by those with a range of pro- or anti-environmentalist agendas that they wish to advance, whatever the results of the scientific discourse turn out to be. In short, recognizing that we have entered the Age of Man does not provide a better moral, ethical or philosophical position to make important policy decisions on over-consumption, the futility of war, population growth, poverty and infant mortality. The moral compass for these issues is to be found elsewhere.

The Anthropocene is the recognition that natural ecological systems that have developed since the melting of the last continental ice masses from the northern hemisphere, a mere ten thousand years ago, have been so changed that they function differently. And the agent of change is Man. Delegates at the conference asked, ‘When did this trend start?’, ‘What indicators do we use, what things do we measure?’, ‘What are our predictions for the future?’, ‘ How long can we continue like this?’, ‘What will species in the future find when they look back at the beginning of the Age of Man?’, ‘Should Man and Nature be restored to some former state of innocence?’

The Anthropocene will continue to be used as a powerful metaphor for the impact of Man on this small blue planet. To ground the term in a scientific appraisal will add force to its use. One hopes that the process of assessment does not take as long, and does not involve as much acrimony, as the great debates of the past over the subdivision of geological time and of the archive of rocks formed over those aeons.

By the time we emerged from dinner in a subterranean vault, darkness had fallen softly and comfortably on the city. It glowed electrically as people scurried to unknown destinations, and traffic buzzed, screeched and hooted, leaving long neon streaks in the photographic plate of my memory. My taxi sped past the great park now lost in darkness as I returned to the quiet Kensington Square. Above the chequer-board of lighted apartment windows was an aircraft descending to Heathrow, identified by a blinking red light and a low sonic rumble, suspended in space as if held by invisible wires. I had time to reflect on the day’s conference and the conversations I had had over dinner in the subterranean vault. Had it been a consecration of a Paradise Lost? The last sacraments of a disappearing world?

Earth felt the wound, and Nature from her seat
Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe
That all was lost.

John Milton, Paradise Lost, 1667

I reflected on the closing thoughts of one of the speakers, Erle Ellis from the University of Maryland, who said “In the Anthropocene, we must embrace humans not as destroyers of nature but as creators, engineers and permanent stewards of the biosphere”. So the answer is ‘No, it had not been a mournful consecration’, because when Paradise is truly lost, it will not be the ‘Age of Man’, but the ‘End of Man’. The blame game will then seem particularly futile.

From Henry Allen (Rec’d & Pub’d 18 May 2011)

Sir, If humans become extinct or evolve out of recognition in the next million years, what record would be left in the geological stratigraphy in say, 100s of million years’ time? While there are now obvious atmosphere/hydrosphere changes such as CO₂, temperature, and radiometric markers now being implanted, they would still be tiny markers in the overall preserved marine sequence, while potentially very little left to see in continental sequences apart from a few catastrophic burials such as Pompie. More significant and exciting perhaps would be the “mega trace fossils” left cross-cutting vast stratigraphies in the form of mines, quarries and boreholes. What will the intelligent life forms (if any) of hundreds of millions of years ahead make of it all?

From Garth Raybould (Rec’d & Pub’d 18 May 2011)

Sir, This is truly an anthropocentric conceit. It will be at the very least hundreds of thousands of years before it becomes evident whether human activity has instigated a period that qualifies as a new epoch. It might very well be that 20th Century developments will be detectable in the future geological record in the form of plastics, concrete, radioactive materials and so on but if humans were wiped out today our record would still be a minuscule part of the whole. Our influence might be “on a par with the event that wiped out the dinosaurs” but even that event was only a boundary, not an epoch – and we’re not even sure it was the significant factor in the succeeding epoch.

This is not to deny in any way the current impact of human activity on climate and biodiversity, but we don’t need an “Anthropocene concept” in order to “quantify present-day change and compare it with the geological record”.

From Neil Mitchell (Rec’d & Pub’d 18 May 2011)

Sir, In studying the sedimentary rock record, we are most commonly looking at marine sediments of various kinds, so marine geology should be an important aspect to this. I don't think anyone has written a general paper quantifying the effect of mankind on modern submarine sediments.

There are a lot of individual studies. I can think of papers talking about the morphological imprint of bottom dredging seen in photographs and high-resolution multibeam data. There are plenty of studies looking at ship-wrecks, pipelines and other installations in shelf seas. Then, there have been various studies of pollutants being transferred to the deep sea (I missed the meeting, unfortunately; changes in sediment flux and pollutants may have been discussed by James). I would have thought there is scope for a general effort in characterising this and it may only require a bringing together of existing / published efforts by UK workers.

Catching the wave

From Paul Henderson (Rec'd & Pub'd 18 May 2011)

I guess you will be interested to know – if you do not already  - that there has been a paper on Hokusai’s Great Wave off Kanagawa, which is depicted on the latest issue of Geoscientist. The citation: Cartwright, . H. E. And Nakamura, H. (2009) What kind of wave is Hokusai’s Great Wave off Kanawaga? Notes Rec. Roy Soc. 63, 119-135.

It concludes that the wave is not a tsunami but more likely to be a large storm wave. The paper indicates that the association of the picture with tsunamis is a relatively new media business. You were careful I think to avoid saying that it is of a tsunami but by linking it so closely with your article etc. you are certainly implying very strongly that it is – also re the caption on page 26. I guess we do not wish to fall into the trap taken by some journalists (or even of some Lords such as Armstrong) of image over truth!

• Editor writes:  Oops.  We just thought it was pretty...

From Aidan Karley (Rec’d & Pub’d 18 May 2011)

Sir, Geoscientist 21.04 tells us of the sexual shenanigans surrounding Society Founder Robert Ferguson. A few issues ago you ran the allegation that William Haywood (of the London sewers and Holborn Viaduct fame) was both a Founder and behind the character of "Walter" in that scurrilous scandalous Victorian bonkbuster "My Secret Life".

My mind sees a trend in this and I am horrified  - horrified I tell you - by the prospect of finding out about the murkier aspects of Dr Dalston's undoubtedly dubious past. Please assure us that this story arc has been thoroughly suppressed, and that "DH" has burned the sketches. Then buried the ashes. In a volcano. On Io.

Shale Gas

From Martin lack CGeol MCIWEM (Rec’d & Pub’d 17 May 2011)

Sir, With respect to Professor Selley, he is an oil exploration geologist by vocation. Therefore, although not surprised, I am very disappointed by his woefully incomplete critique of Oil Shale exploration in Geoscientist this month. Furthermore, I do not much care for his attempt at humour over what is such a serious subject.

Oil Shale exploration is a dangerously flawed strategy for the same reason that dividing up the seabed beneath the soon-to-be-absent Arctic Sea Ice is wrong. We have known for over 100 years that releasing CO₂ into the atmosphere faster than the Earth system can assimilate it may put the whole planet in as perilous a situation as the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission. It is a scientifically demonstrable fact that doubling the CO₂ concentration will drive average global temperatures up about three degrees Celsius. Therefore, just as most people stop smoking once they understand that it shortens their life expectancy, we need to stop burning fossil fuels now that we know it causes global warming.

Although Greenpeace may have to deploy dubious arguments to oppose genetically modified organisms or nuclear power, their opposition to chasing every last drop of ever-more-harder-to-extract fossil fuel is just common sense. Therefore, Greenpeace was probably delighted when BP changed its name to “Beyond Petroleum”; and utterly despondent when they recently repudiated that idea by announcing they would go after “unconventional oil” with a vengeance.

As a species, we have a seriously life-threatening carbon habit; one that we need to kick as soon as possible. Paying for the methadone substitute (renewable energy – tidal being the best option for the UK) will be much less painful than eventually having to go “cold turkey”. As George Monbiot has recently pointed out (The Guardian, 2 May 2011), our problem is not that we have too little fossil fuel; but that we have too much. Furthermore, we don’t seem to have the self-control to stop using it.

Finally, if it is considered helpful to quote Bible verses to back up an argument, I would go for:

• “‘I have the right to do anything’, you say—but not everything is beneficial” (I Corinthians 6:12).

Climate change

From Tony Milward (Rec’d & Pub’d 10 May 2011)

Sir, It was refreshing to read Richard Clarke's comment (Letters April, Geoscientist 20.03, p22) drawing attention to the greater importance of world population growth to the well being of human kind, than the threat of climate change

A decade or so ago after vainly attempting to get local environmental groups to look at population growth seriously and put it on their policy list above collecting coffee grains for the compost heap, I joined an organisation called the 'Optimum Population Trust’ (OPT) whose main aim was to provide reliable statistics on national and international population growth and its effects. The trust also fields informed speakers for public debate.

Being of the opinion that one should get one’s own house in order before trying to solve the problems of the world, I tried to get the OPT to start a debate on immigration; but it soon became evident that political correctness and fears of being labelled racist inhibited this and eventually I resigned.

I do not know if OPT has revised this policy of keeping a low profile on immigration now that it is increasingly debated by all political parties but, having long been an observer of the entrenched views of those who believe there are no limits to growth on a planet with finite resources I fear that it would be easier to stop plate tectonics than to impose measures to keep population within sustainable limits that are comfortable for all.

Freedom to procreate is not unreasonably seen as a right, and a taboo subject and no democratically elected government would stay in power long enough to see the fruits of any policy to intervene in this area. I fear It will be left to the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to finally sort things out.

From John Heathcote (Rec'd & Pub'd 7 April 2011)

Sir, In support of Richard Clarke (Letters vol 21 no. 3 - see below), I would say 'well said!'. There is also the problem of economic growth, the need for which we are told about endlessly, but the continuance of which on a finite planet is clearly impossible. Population growth may come to an end, but I suspect it will be involuntary, either as a result of resource shortages (starvation and thirst), or auto-predation (war), or perhaps predation by disease.

However, as a geologist I find one small crumb of comfort. The evidence of the fossil record is that life is tenacious and it seems likely that it will continue after we have gone.

Core values

From Marjorie Allworth (Rec’d & Pub’d 10 May 2011)

Sir, It was with interest that I read (Letters, April) about old data being preserved, and Harriet Jarlett’s piece about the Moon’s core (Geoscientist, Vol.21.02 March 2011, p8) may have provided a case in point!

I was reminded, upon reading it, of my degree dissertation (long ago) in which I studied planetary science. I had the idea that, as the Earth’s inner core rotated and was at the same time growing at the rate of c. 1mm/yr, then the Iron /metallic content of the outer core becoming part of the inner core, i.e. as the Fe atoms settled, the effect of their journey downwards could be responsible for driving the Earth’s magnetic field - e.g. like the ‘iron snow’ model.

The partially melted section (above the outer core) of our Moon (described in Harriet’s article) is not conducive to an intrinsic magnetic field. The narrower band of the smaller outer core area may be, in some part, due to a loss of iron and other metallic elements. The fluid outer core, which is still liquid, however may be depleted in its metallic iron yet may still allow the small inner core to move.

Although there is relict magnetism on the moon there is now no magnetic field. So the Moon’s inner core, even though unable to produce a magnetic field, may, still be able to rotate somewhat within the outer core.

The metallic dendrites of the inner core may help perpetuate the magnetic field, as they would add to any turbulence in the immediate vicinity of the lowest part of the inner core. Another factor: as the core’s growth appears to be hemi spherically anisotropic, (Marc Monnereau et al., Science May 21 Vol 328. No 5981, pp1014-1017), might this be, with the melting [eastern hemisphere] and crystallising, [western hemisphere] a further contributor to Earth’s field? Or even the origin of the field? If the outer part of the inner core somehow moves around its own inner layers in a crystalline formation within the pressured confined space that is the centre of Earth, would that create a magnetic field? Could it be that the actual way the inner core grows creates a magnetic field?

The ‘iron snow’, falling and twisting towards a rotating core, with, an albeit small, differentiation to the rest of the Earth, may, be the more sensible and likely explanation. Due to the small, but, significant, – faster turning of the inner core to the rest of the Earth. But, - if an inner core was capable of some sort of ‘self magnetic field creation’ then, this just might explain, Ganymede’s own small magnetic field, - in opposition to Jupiter’s own large field.

The inner core rotating slightly faster than the outer layers of the Earth could be due to the heavier elements of the newly forming planetesimals beginning to rotate before the new planet was actually formed? Thus aiding the differentiation of the heavier elements? As the inner core grows at the expense of the outer cores metallic content, then- the more fluidic outer core over time would, eventually become depleted in those metals. 1mm of inner core growth per year is a lot of Iron taken from the Earth's outer core and over time the Earth’s field would become weaker and, the magnetic field would, eventually fail completely.

Hot rocks!

From Freddy Kosten (Rec'd & Pub'd 27 April 2011)

Sir, Joe McCall’s report on the geothermal wells now being drilled at Menengai (‘Hot Kenya Rocks’ Geoscientist, February 2011) referred to the exploration at Olkaria, which began in 1956, and noted that production did not begin until 1981. I hope that some facts concerning the intervening years will prove of interest.

Two boreholes were drilled at Olkaria between 1956 and 1959, on behalf of a syndicate with which Balfour Beatty was associated and which was headed by the East African Power and Lighting Company. As one of BB’s engineering geologists, I worked at Olkaria for several periods in 1956 and 1957, during the absence from site of my colleague Derek Marriott who was in charge of the investigation. The first borehole was abandoned at a depth of 1644’; a second borehole was drilled to 3096’ but attempts to bring it into production failed and work was stopped in March 1959. The syndicate retained exploitation rights.

In 1967 I was asked to consider whether interest could be kept alive in this geothermal project, with a view to applying to the United Nations for funds to support a substantial exploration programme. I suggested a Wenner configuration resistivity survey, to cover some eighty miles along the floor of the Rift Valley between Olkaria to the south and Lake Hannington (now Lake Bogoria) to the north. This proposal was accepted – on a strictly limited time and funds budget!

I carried out this survey between April and November 1967; it involved about two months of reconnaissance followed by 4½ months of measurements. 242 stations were occupied with readings taken at five electrode spacings between 500’ and 1500’.

The Kenya Government and the UN jointly funded further work from 1970 to 1974. Although the outcome was described as ‘disappointing’ in 1974, the second, deeper, Olkaria borehole was brought into production in 1972 and pointed the way to the later successful exploitation of the Olkaria area.

I retain a personal interest in the current drilling programme, since my 1968 report concluded on the basis of the resistivity measurements, that further exploration should take place in three areas, one of which was Menengai.

Climate change (continued)

From David Q Bowen (Rec’d 14 & Pub’d 15 February 2011.  Reply to Summerhayes Rec'd & Pub'd 19 April)

Sir, This should be seen by all Fellows!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/david-archibald-on-climate-and-energy-security/#more-33809

Colin Summerhayes comments:

I have no doubt that there are a lot of global warming nay-sayers out there; some of them are among our Fellows. In due course I hope that we can persuade doubters by sound scientific argument to accept that global warming is indeed taking place and that it is caused by our activities. In that context I take heart from the recent TV programme "Storyville meets the climate sceptics" at 10pm on Monday Jan 31, in which arch-sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton agreed that the Earth is indeed warming, that CO₂ is indeed increasing, and that increasing CO₂ should warm the atmosphere. A key point he wanted to make was that he and his ilk thought that the climate sensitivity was low (i.e. a doubling of CO₂ would lead to a rise of no more than 1 degree C), while others, like Jim Hansen of NASA, thought it would be high (3 deg C for a CO₂ doubling). There seem to be a lot more climate scientists on Hansen's side than on Monckton's. Hansen has the virtue of basing his assessment not on climate models, which have too many faults for his liking, but on paleoclimate data - especially how the Earth warmed in relation to CO₂ during the past 4 major interglacials. It is because he relates his arguments to these real world geological data that I am most inclined to go along with his thesis, which is elaborated upon on his web sites (www.giss.nasa.gov/; www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/) and in his book "Storms of my Grandchildren".

The blog referred to by DBQ is from David Archibald, a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, which argues against human-induced global warming. Mr Archibald lists his interests as climate, oil, and cancer. I was unable to find out from his web site what his scientific credentials are, and I note that he fails to cite most of the sources for his climate change slides in the blog, so it is difficult to judge what merit we should accord his arguments. Some of his own papers on climate change topics were published in Energy and Environment, the peer-review process of which has been criticised as facilitating the publication of scientific papers by global warming sceptics.

Mr Archibald’s blog and his web site suggest that he believes that much of recent climate change is largely due to the sun, and has little to do with CO₂ or humans. He is right to point out that there can be periods of sunspot minima that might cool the Earth temporarily, as happened in the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715, but that is not something new to the climate science community. There have been no or few sunspots for quite a while, which is interpreted by some to indicate that we may be headed for a sunspot minimum that would cool the Earth slightly. But even if we are, that does not mean that growing atmospheric CO₂ may not counteract the effects. Anyway, careful analyses of the competing theories (sun versus CO₂), shows that solar activity has been largely flat (apart from sunspot wiggles) since the recent warming trend began in around 1970, which puts a dent in Mr Archibald’s hypothesis. For some discussion of the arguments see Hansen’s book. Hansen is a hard man to refute, supported as he is by masses of data and experience, though not everyone likes the way in which he describes naysayers, nor his stand on civil disobedience in relation to the construction of power stations without carbon capture. The difference between the two men, as I see it, is that one is testing scientific hypotheses and generating data and making it public for all to see, while the other is expressing opinions about the science.

Great care needs to be taken in navigating blog sites away from the peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate change. There is always a danger that data may have been cherry-picked to make a point; that pieces of graphs may have been selected so as to hide inconvenient overall trends that might tell a different story; and that short term variation is considered more important than long term trends. Of course I am also aware that there can be dangers in the peer-reviewed literature (i.e. the UEA story). This is a reminder to all of us of the wisdom in the latin tag - caveat emptor.

Reply to Dr Summerhayes

How amusing to be included among FGS `naysayers` by Dr Summerhayes (CS)! Had he seen the message I sent to the Editor, Ted Nield ("let me make it plain that I am neither a “warmer” (AGW) nor a “denier”") after recommending the blog in question I doubt such a gratuitous epithet would have been used. My position is clear enough in evidence to the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology (Scientific Advice on Climate Change, Third Report 28 February 2001), and in the geological conservation magazine Earth Heritage (Jan 2000).

Surely the debate is about whether it is possible to distinguish between natural climate variability and that caused by people. So how can there be consensus about the future? The only real consensus is:

1. that since the Little Ice Age and Industrial Revolution the average global temperature has probably risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius and carbon dioxide has increased by about 30% over the same period;
2. there is good evidence that anthropogenic activities have been responsible the increase in carbon dioxide although natural processes may also have contributed;
3. a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration would increase the radiative forcing of the Earth, the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation, by about 2%. Is that a cause for alarm? Politicians think so. But the rise in temperature has not tracked that of carbon dioxide to show a direct causal connection. Internal variability and natural cycles in the climate system with their complex non-linear feed-backs are far from being understood. Is it credible that enough comprehensive data of high quality, especially on land, exist for computer models to predict the future? Instead are geological analogues useful?

Some of those suggested, such as Pliocene warmth (5.4-3 Ma) or that of the PETM (55 Ma) enjoyed physical boundary conditions far removed from the Brunhes Chron where no two interglacials were alike and all ended soon after their carbon dioxide concentrations peaked. The leading authority on the PETM has said it `is not an ideal analog for future anthropogenic warming` (Zachos, EGU abs 2011). In any event, it coincided with a massive release of greenhouse gases from the Tertiary Igneous Province of the North Atlantic (Svensen et al 2010, JGS, 167; Zeebe et al Nature Geo. 2009).

There is no question but that the entire range of evidence and opinion is not in any open and accessible domain. On blogs (see CS): there are, of course, blogs and blogs. But many draw rapid attention to newly published refereed articles in, for example, Geophysical Research Letters and the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Distinguishing the Roles of Natural and Anthropogenically Forced Decadal Climate Variability, 92, 141-156 Feb 2011 2011); as well as to NOAA satellite measurements since 1979. Some ask pertinent questions, such as: is carbon-dioxide, essential for plant growth, a dangerous toxin destroying the planet; and is it responsible for all `disasters` otherwise considered as episodic natural occurrences? Care must be taken not to deny access of `nay-saying` information to the media as one politician once famously recommended. The most recent reasoned analysis of the relationship between climate, energy and economics is The really inconvenient truth (March 2011) by former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull¹. Who can deny the value of such erudite and thoughtful commentaries? It would be interesting to read a similarly soberly written piece from an 'ay-sayer` to see where the differences lie. They think that this has already been done and proclaim 'the science is settled'.

But what would James Clerk Maxwell, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and Karl Popper have made of this? Would they have laughed or cried?

David Bowen, 14 April, 2011.

1. http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2711-lord-turnbull-the-really-inconvenient-truth.htmlhttp://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2711-lord-turnbull-the-really-inconvenient-truth.html

Geoscientist redesign - the eyes have it

From Carol Simpson (Rec'd & Pub'd 19 April)

Sir, Whatever has happened to Geoscientist?? All of a sudden, it's terrific!!

I had just arrived at the point of saying to myself (and, I regret to say, to others) that this magazine had become so fuddy-duddy that I couldn't bear it any longer, when here comes a vibrant, well-designed, and beautifully written issue that even features a couple of serious women geoscientists. Finally!

My apologies for all the exclamation marks, which is really not my usual communication style, but as a long-time resident of the US, the regular arrival of Geoscientist has been my main connection with the Society for many years and despite obvious efforts to make it more relevant, the magazine had become quite disappointing. You and your editorial staff have restored my confidence in the future of the Society, just as I had given up all hope.

I do not know to whom the praise should be directed for this long-overdue overhaul, but please pass on my sincere thanks and a hearty "Well done!"

Lots more along the same lines, please!

From Tony Bazley (Rec'd & Pub'd 22 February)

Sir, I very much like the new-look Geoscientist. Miss the photograph of the Editor, obviously, but the layout of the rest is very easy on the eye. The subheads grab attention and it is much more 'newsy' while retaining articles of significance. The paper seems better quality too. All-in-all a professional job. Well done to all involved.

From David C Almond (Rec'd & Pub'd 9 February)

Sir, I can immediately see the greatly improved legibility of the typescript in the newly formatted Geoscientist and write to thank you for this change, in particular.

From April Lloyd (Rec'd 8, Pub'd 9 February)

Sir, I just wanted to drop a quick email to you and the team at Geoscientist to congratulate you all on the great new look and format of the magazine. Lots more colour and images support the interesting articles- a really engaging publication. Look forward to the next issue.

From Mike Ridd (Rec'd 8, Pub'd 9 February)

Sir, I don't like it! I don't like it at all!  The pages look cluttered and busy, with their prominent bands of colour, unnecessary inset pictures, bold coloured headings and sub-headings. The appearance is more that of a sales brochure (dare I say 'junk mail'), with every page competing to grab my attention. Please, please, consider reverting to the former, more restrained, style.

From Peter Styles (Rec'd 10, & Pub'd  14 February)

Sir, Nice new look! Well done.

From Ron Williams (Rec'd 13, Pub'd 14 February)

Sir, You and your team have done a really good job with the revamping of Geoscientist. The content is as impressive as always and the new layout has a very lively feel. Well done.

Gordale in a glass darkly

From Paul Ensom (Rec’d & Pub’d 4 April 2011)

Sir, It is always a pleasure to see James Ward's Gordale Scar illustrated. However the image reproduced in the latest issue of Geoscientist (21, 3) has been reversed, and sadly much detail is lost in the murk. Readers may be interested to know of Edward J. Nygren's James Ward's Gordale Scar. An essay in the sublime, published by the Tate Gallery, 1982.

Corruption kills

From Ralph JH Parkin* (Rec'd 25 & Pub'd 29 March 2011)

Sir, Thank you for your Editorial comment "A matter of integrity" ( Geoscientist 21.02 March 2011 ).  Working internationally on major infrastructure projects as I have done for the last 20 years, you see first hand the corruption that goes on in the construction industry, it's effects and it is sickening. Sichuan earthquake just one example. I have just returned to Malaysia from a visit to Manila, where I experienced a M5.4 intensity III quake that seemed to go forever.

Nervous? Of course!  Corruption is a real issue in the Philippines, but as you say, it's the historic corruption which matters just as much. Who built that office block I was sitting in, who designed it, who supervised the construction? As a hydropower engineer, I have stood on top of 125m high dams in Romania, looking downstream at big towns with hospitals and schools in the valley at the toe of the dam, knowing that safety-critical equipment is not working or totally absent, stolen or never installed.

Halcrow were co-authors of the guidlines to the new Anti-Bribery Act along with Transparency International and a large amount of our decision-making process on whether we will be engaged on a project rests squarely on the CPI ranking of the country, along with our own knowledge of ethics in the country/client. It's one of the reasons I joined Halcrow, but this can be limiting from a business-expansion viewpoint. Still, we believe that in the end, holding on to our values is more important and I can sleep at night.

* CGeol, FGS, CEng, MIMMM, Regional Director, Halcrow East Asia Water and Power Business Group

Mr “tsunami”

From Richard Downing (Rec’d 12, Pub’d21 Mar)

Sir, In the late 18th Century in Thornhill, near Dewsbury, an unsung country clergyman continued to pursue his interest in science. His name was John Michell: a name lost in the archives, but undeservedly so. John Michell was a remarkable man who made fundamental advances to the development of geology, physics and astronomy and deserves to be more widely recognised.

Michell was born in 1724 or 1725 and is believed to have been a native of Nottingham. He entered Queens College, Cambridge in 1724 taking a bachelors degree in mathematics in 1748, continuing to an M.A and finally a B.D in 1761. He remained at Cambridge for 21 years holding a variety of posts in the University culminating as the Woodwardian Professor of Geology, a position he held from 1762 until 1764. Thereafter he relinquished academic life, married, and successively became Rector of Compton in the Itchen Valley of Havant and finally in 1767, of Thornhill.

Michell was a tubby small man of dark complexion who counted among his friends Henry Cavendish, Joseph Priestley and William Herschel as well as many other prominent scientifically-minded people of his day. In an ingenious paper in 1760, in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, he suggested earthquakes were natural phenomena that produced seismic waves which travelled through the earth. He recognised the importance of elastic compression in producing vibratory movements; he determined the epicentre and depth of the major 1755 earthquake that struck Lisbon so disastrously, and suggested that tsunamis are caused by earthquakes below the sea.

He made extensive geological field observations during travels across England which led to his recognition of the regular sequence of sedimentary strata, as well as unconformable surfaces caused by denudation. He established the Mesozoic sequence in England by simply observing the order of superposition.

Michell demonstrated that iron needles can be magnetised and demagnetised by electricity, anticipating work later credited to Franklin. He also discovered that the force of repulsion between two like magnetic poles obeys an inverse square law. These results were published in 1750 in “A Treatise on Artificial Magnets”, anticipating in part the work that became incorporated in Coulomb’s law.

Towards the end of his life Michell invented the torsion balance as a means of weighing the earth. After his death the apparatus was given to Henry Cavendish who successfully carried out, in 1798, the experiments Michell had designed.

Michell also made important advances in astronomy displaying amazing acumen. He built a 10-foot reflector telescope which on his death was bought by Herschel who found it more useful than his own. He was an early philosopher on the structure of the universe, believing the nebulae were separate “universes” of stars. In 1783 he speculated that gravity may act on light in a similar fashion to its action on matter and that massive stars may prevent light leaving them because of their gravitational pull – the first suggestion that Black Holes may exist. He also deduced that double stars are companion stars bound together by an attractive force.

Michell died in 1793 at the age of 69 and is buried in Thornhill. He was not only a most accomplished geologist but also an ingenious innovative thinker, a pioneering scientist who played an important role both in physics and in discussions of revolutionary issues in astronomy. He was undoubtedly one of the founders of seismology. Michell was often ahead of his time and like so many who have been in this position, the merit of his work was not recognised. His accomplishments so astonished Archibald Geikie that he published, in 1918 through the Cambridge University press, a short memoir on his life. Perhaps we should once again stop and pay homage to the value of the work of this exceptional eighteenth century polymath.

Rock miles

From Christopher Nolan (Rec’d & Pub’d 17 March 2011)

Sir, Don’t get me started (Soapbox, Geoscientist 21.02 March 2011 p3). Please take a moment to look at the high-sided pallets on which all this stone is being imported. You will find that it is invariably tropical hardwood. To import this timber any other way would probably be highly illegal…but as a pallet? It makes my blood boil, It should make everybody's blood boil! They are probably whipping it from PNG to India, quarrying the sandstone patio flags and shipping it to UK as a building stone. They are making pallets out of the rainforest and we're buying them - never mind the stone!

A name far too far

From Allen Hatheway

(Rec’d & Pub’d 15 March 2011)

Sir, As I complete my enjoyable reading of Geoscientist I am compelled to offer this statement of admiration and support for the Culshaw outcry (Letters, March 2011 p22).

Bravo for Martin Culshaw, for picking up the cudgel to beat upon those who would take wholesale transfer of our humble scientific and technical turf to throw such up as the fool's blanket against our emerging climate-change challenges, as to presume that some relief can be had by way of Geo-engineering. Is that not what we practise?

And who among us is not willing to protest that nature itself is not about to be artificially modified so as to allow we mere humans to more comfortably make use of the planet.

Climate change requires population control

From Richard Clarke (Rec'd 8, Pub'd 9 February)

Sir, I loved your definition of "climate change denyer", though I believe it completely misses the point. Climate change is a fact of life and our contribution incontrovertible, with myriad historical precedents, as we geologists all know. It's the "climate change" label that's wrong. "Population squeezing" (see Garland's letter, 2010) would be better.

What upsets sceptics about the new politically charged environmental science, with its preference for models and consensus rather than truth, is the Cassandra syndrome: "We're all doomed". Poppycock! See Sarah Day's excellent report on "reptile recovery" for some truth. We need birth control in our water supplies far more than we need carbon taxes. No politician or religious leader can admit this, so we are misled.

A re-focusing of the argument by responsible geological leaders towards population control might change politics in time to stop us wiping ourselves out.

Horner corner

From Andrew McMillan (Rec’d & Pub’d 7 February 2011)

Sir, I was pleased to read about Leonard Horner in the February issue of Geoscientist , (Geoscientist 21.1, p08) and shall probably buy a copy of Patrick O'Farrell's book. The Edinburgh Academy was founded in 1824 by a triumvirate consisting of Horner, Henry Cockburn (Lord Cockburn) and John Russell, following an early discussion between Horner and Cockburn while walking on the Pentland Hills in April 1822.


Magnus Magnusson's book The Clacken and the Slate - The Story of The Edinburgh Academy 1824-1974, is well worth perusal, and refers to Horner's incredible energies directed towards educational reform. As an Academical and geologist, I have always been pleased that one of the school's founders had a keen interest in geology!

Re-examining old data

From Gordon Beattie (Rec’d & Pub’d 17 January 2011)

Sir, During the “Oil Boom” (1975-82) a great deal of energy exploration was carried out in many diverse locations. The sheer scale of work done (rig count peaked at nearly 6000 against a background of less than 3000), influx of personnel and rapid evolution of technology meant that vast volumes of records were taken into storage. This material may, in future, prove to be of considerable value as energy crises occur.

Among the traditional forms of rig data were Geolograph charts, IADC reports, well diaries, chromatograph charts, mud reports, lithologs, cuttings, etc. These were in hard format, and easily accessed, but the influx of novice personnel meant that some of the results were not as rigorously checked as would be the normal case.
Added to this was arrival of computers in field and operations departments. This material was stored in an assortment of the then current computer forms.

These formats employed many different types of data storage: HP Cartridges, cassettes, large floppy discs, small floppy discs, etc. Each had their benefits: HP Cartridges were robust in construction, cassettes were readily available, large floppy discs lived fast, died young and may have left interesting corpses, and small floppy discs are now becoming scarce, historic items! Many of these formats are no longer in either use, or fashion, and access is rapidly becoming difficult as the march of progress leads to memory sticks and “The Cloud”.

In addition, the personnel who collected this information are now many years older and personal recollections, which could be helpful, are becoming misty. Finally, while the majority of exploration was undertaken by well established, experienced companies, some work was done by a group of small independent operators, of short existence, of variable interest.

What, if anything, is being done about this? Am I alone in finding this potential loss of information worrying?

Dialogue needed to gain enhanced value from geotechnical risk management in construction

From Paul Maliphant (Rec’d & Pub’d 7 December 2011)

Sir, Ten years ago, Prof Chris Clayton wrote the seminal document Managing Geotechnical Risk. Since then we have entered a recession, are under pressure to reduce construction costs and adapt to a low carbon economy. Such changes, on their own, introduce additional risk; but many still feel that geotechnical risk continues to be sidelined, despite clear evidence that ground is hazardous and can impact significantly on the cost and delivery of projects. Conceptual and numerical ground models and geotechnical risk registers all target reductions in geotechnical risk (and therefore cost). Yet concern persists that these are still not at the heart of the decision-making process.

Claire Symes, in an editorial comment published in Ground Engineering  (November 2011), spoke for many in the industry when she urged us to improve our understanding of the needs and difficulties of other sectors and stakeholders. Action is needed now, not only to address the understanding and impact of geotechnical risk, but also to place this risk in context - through dialogue with other construction professionals.

Initiating this dialogue is the purpose of a seminar to take place on 20th February 2012, at Burlington House. This is intended to act as a platform for construction professionals to present their views of project risk and help place geotechnical risk in a wider context. It is the first of a number of activities aimed at better integration of geotechnical risk in the decision-making process planned for 2012 by a review group led by Barry Clarke, (University of Leeds, Vice President ICE) and Paul Maliphant, (Halcrow, Vice President Geological Society) in conjunction with Constructing Excellence. It will help construction professionals understand the relative importance of geotechnical risk and how the value of ground investigation, design and construction can be brought home to others.

The geotechnical community has, for many years, argued the case for improved ground investigations, for developing ground models and employing engineers and geologists who are demonstrably competent in ground engineering. Yet there is much still to be done in getting these messages across, and then acted upon. The case for improvement in 1993 (articulated in Without Site Investigations Ground is a Hazard) was supported by evidence of cost overrun, contract delay, failure to perform as expected, and even catastrophic failure. Since that time the construction industry has changed. We need to gather new evidence to demonstrate the continuing importance of ground engineering to reducing risk.