Letters to the Society

Writing to the Society

This page has been created to facilitate rapid and timely interchange of opinion. Each month (space permitting) a selection of these letters will be published in Geoscientist , the Society's colour monthly magazine.

Correspondence strings are listed in the order that they are begun, the most recent string at the top. Within each string, letters are listed with the first letter of the string at the top, and subsequent letters below.

If you wish to express an opinion, please Email the Editor. Letters should be as short as possible, preferably c.300 words long or fewer. You may also write to:

Dr Ted Nield, Editor, Geoscientist, c/o The Geological Society, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BG.

Please note that letters will be edited for publication. This particularly applies to versions printed in the magazine. The Editor reserves the right not to publish letters, at his discretion. Writers should submit their letters electronically to ensure rapid publication. All views expressed below are the responsibility of their authors alone.

Letters 2009

Author entering unsupported excavation for geological survey. As an adult he makes a choice of whether or not entry is safe and a hard hat advisable. The red bag keeps his notes safe and dry.

Now adults, try some common sense!

From David James (Rec'd 4 March; Pub'd 9 march 2010)

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!

Ice sheets

From Bruce Denness (Rec'd 9; Pub'd 10 March 2010)

Sir, Reading Cliff Ollier's piece on glaciers (Geoscientist 20.3 March 2010), I had an uneasy feeling that he may have been standing too near the polar trees to see the global wood. Interesting though his observations on glacier dynamics may be as far as they go, they do not appear to explain the dramatic events associated with the geologically recent past: the ending of the last ice age.

In little more than 2000 years starting less than 15,000 years ago, the global temperature rose naturally by about 6ºC accompanied a short while later by an equally rapid sea level rise of 100 metres or so due to the melting of continental ice sheets over much of the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere, which must then have been much like Greenland and Antarctica today. That was about 50 mm/year, which is consistent with forecasts of an impending sea level rise of about 5 metres by 2100 (Hansen, 2007) and about double that by 2200 (Denness, 1985). The latter was based on a global temperature forecasting model first published in detail by Denness (1984).

Avid readers of Geoscientist - and who isn't? - may recall that the temperature model also forecast: “a dramatic increase in global temperature for the 1990s – much more than expected from conventional models” (Denness, 1992); that duly occurred. The model likewise forecast the temperature decrease that has been going on over the last few years, obviating the need for the alleged “trick” apparently used by East Anglia's Climate Research Unit to disguise it. A conference organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers last November heard that the model goes on to forecast a sharp rise of about 0.25ºC around 2012 followed by fairly steady temperature until a further hike of about 0.4ºC in 2029 and, unless the world acts in unison now to prevent it, accelerating and uncontrollable rise thereafter (see Figure). Perhaps we should be grateful for economic recession.

References

Denness, B. (1984): The greenhouse affair. Marine Pollution Bulletin 15(10), Pergamon Press, Oxford, 355-362.
Denness, B. (1985): Greenhouse dilemma. Nature 318, 391.
Denness, B. (1992): Global warming: natural and manmade. Geoscientist 2(4), 45.
Hansen, J. (2007): Huge sea level rises are coming – unless we act now. New Scientist 2614, 30-34.
Ollier, C. (2010): Glaciers – science and nonsense. Geoscientist 20(3), 16-21.

From Peter Barker (Rec’d 6 March; Pub’d 9 March 2010)

Sir, Cliff Ollier (Geoscientist 20.3) presents a partial view of glaciation, and the consequences for sea-level change. The best way of responding is probably to make a short list of statements addressing its main vulnerabilities.

Glaciers and ice sheets do flow downhill, but the relevant slope is essentially that of the ice surface, not that of underlying bedrock. Basal ice can flow “uphill”.
Ice flows (creeps) at all relevant temperatures: the colder, the slower, but still it flows. Geothermal heat and friction are important at depth, and basal melting can occur
Ice sheets are much younger (ie exchange ice with their surroundings) towards their edges than in the middle, as temperature (and other factors such as humidity and distance from the point of evaporation) affects both snowfall and flow. Close to its edges, an ice sheet does respond to modern temperature change. Palaeotemperature drilling goes for the longer record in the middle.
Antarctica is a (mainly) high continent, long sitting over the South Pole, whereas the North Pole lies within a deep ocean, with the nearest continents in lower (though still high) latitudes. Which do you think would be glaciated first, other things (eg ocean circulation) being equal?

There are other over-simplifications in the article, which it is pointless to try to correct. While applauding the concern that “melting scares” should not prevail, any more than denials of anthropogenic global warming, I think such an article should have been reviewed by a glaciologist before publication.

1984 and all that - reply

From Griff Cordey (Rec’d & Pub’d 25 February 2010)

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.

Charter for change?

From Wendy Furgusson (Rec’d 19, Pub’d 24 February 2010)

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.

Peak pique

From Dr David Antia (Rec’d & Pub’d 23 February 2010)

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:-

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].
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.

Strachan, D., 2010. Bridging the energy gap. Geoscientist, 20, 2, 15-19.
Hubbert, M.K., 1971. The energy resources of the earth, Scientific American, 225, (September), 60-70
Cambell, C.J., Laherrere, J.H., 1998. The end of cheap oil. Scientific American, (March), 78-83.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.

Climate Change

From Hugh Richards (Rec'd & Pub'd 20 January 2010)

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.

Relocation of Gilmerton UKCS to Keyworth

From John Ludden (Executive Director) & Richard Hughes (Director of Information and Knowledge Exchange), BGS. (Rec’d & Pub’d 24 November 2009)

Sir, BGS has been the custodian of the unique UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) core and records collections at Gilmerton (Edinburgh) for many years on behalf of the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and predecessor departments. Under a Memorandum of Understanding with DECC the BGS provides access to the collections for the oil and gas industry and the academic community in the UK and abroad. BGS’s announcement in late August of its proposal to close the Gilmerton core store and re-locate the collections to its head office site at Keyworth has attracted much recent attention, with both objection and support being voiced.

BGS’s collections of data, samples and records are currently spread over 41 separate locations at seven sites across the UK: three in England and four in Scotland. Some of these facilities have been assessed as “not fit for purpose” by The National Archives, and the large number of sites and locations inevitably means very high running costs. In late 2008, therefore, BGS instructed independent consultants (Tribal Group) to undertake a review of all its information management facilities, to identify the limitations of the current configurations and propose alternatives. The review involved a consultation phase during which the opinions of a range of users were solicited, including representatives of Oil & Gas UK, DECC, UK university geoscience departments, the Geological Society, UK Collections Advisory Committee, The National Archives, The Coal Authority, Ground Forum etc. Stakeholders were asked specifically to comment on new possible storage options including re-locating existing Scottish facilities to Keyworth, and moving appropriate parts of the collections into commercial storage.

While stakeholders recognised the potential benefits of consolidation of collections at Keyworth, some concerns were expressed that such a move would put further distance between the UKCS data/collections and oil and gas industry users. During the review the consultants therefore looked at the geographical distribution of the Gilmerton store user community. Analysis of users (both commercial and academic) over the past two years shows that 25% of visits were made by users based in Scotland and that the remaining 75% had to travel from various parts of England, Wales, Ireland and further afield including North America.

The cores are to be relocated to a new purpose-built facility, which will be an extension to the existing store of similar size. It will have ‘state of the art’ powered mobile racking, and will be large enough to accommodate the contents of the Gilmerton store, with expansion capacity for strategically important cores from all sources that we expect will be deposited in the coming years. There will be ready access to sample preparation and photographic facilities not available in Gilmerton, and to all the other facilities offered at the BGS head office. The BGS Chief Curator is currently reviewing core examination facilities worldwide as a means of identifying best practice, and the independent BGS Collections Advisory Committee are reviewing and feeding into the plans. It is expected that two additional confidential core viewing laboratories will be fitted out to augment the existing excellent facilities.

Not only will these facilities provide for the needs of our industry users, but they will open new opportunities for university departments to use the Keyworth core store facilities to further support education and training in petroleum geosciences (see for example Geoscientist, March 2009).

Concerns have been raised regarding potential damage and loss of integrity of the Gilmerton cores during transportation. We want to reassure the community that BGS takes this issue extremely seriously. Throughout the history of Gilmerton's operation, until four years ago, both offshore and onshore hydrocarbon core and samples were sent directly to Gilmerton. After curation, the onshore (landward) cores were held at Gilmerton until they were released. At this point, the boxes were placed on pallets and transported to Keyworth, where all the onshore cores have been held. BGS is not aware of a single piece of core being damaged by this process. The core boxes are well packed during curation (core is always double boxed for added protection), and the boxes are kept horizontal throughout transport. It is because we have been regularly transporting core and samples from Gilmerton to Keyworth without damage for the past 20 years that we can be confident that the planned move will work without adverse effects.

The extension to the existing facilities at Keyworth has been made possible due to a major injection of capital funding for the Keyworth site from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. BGS and NERC are acutely aware that we must deliver the best possible science and service to our stakeholders, as efficiently and effectively as possible.

We foresee a day when university departments and others will send scientists to the Keyworth facility to work on cores from the North Sea, from onshore UK geothermal wells, from holes drilled for potential radioactive waste storage sites or key palaeo-environmental sections – all in one purpose-built facility. BGS believes strongly that the proposed consolidation of the Gilmerton collections at Keyworth is the best way forward towards guaranteeing the future accessibility of these unique collections, in perpetuity, for the benefit of industry and academia alike.

From John Collinson (Rec’d & Pub’d 10 November 2009)

Sir, I am pleased to see the Executive Secretary’s clarification [see below]. I mistakenly interpreted a list of invitees as one of attendees. The clarification poses several important questions about the procedures within the Society and within BGS. However, I think that these issues are less pressing than the main concern here, the preservation of the cores.

Andy Sims makes a compelling case for not moving the core and this is a major plank of the widespread objection to the BGS plans. The main aim must be to reverse the BGS decision. If that proves impossible, then the very least that should happen is that the cores are transported in specialised trucks with anti-shock suspensions, as commonly happens in industry and that all cores are photographed before shipping. In that way, we would retain a record of what the cores looked like before they are reduced in transit to trays of rubble and loose sand. Such destruction would remove all prospect of carrying out further textural and diagenetic studies, which may become important when reservoir sands become targets for CO₂ sequestration. You would not try to carry out studies of the fabric and behaviour of muscles on a hamburger. The BGS needs to understand that it cannot unscramble eggs and that leaving the cores where they are is by far the safest option.

The lack of a photographic archive of UK cores is, in any case, a cause for concern. What would be the consequences if the cores store in either Gilmerton or Keyworth were burnt to the ground, or one of the transport trucks crashed? I find it galling that I can carry out a large part of a core-based study in the Norwegian sector sitting at my desk in England, using on-line photographs on the NPD website, whereas in the UK I have to travel to a core store for even basic information. A photographic archive of UK cores would promote greater efficiency among users and be a fantastic teaching and research resource for the future.

BGS should leave the core in Edinburgh and spend the money saved compiling a photographic database that would be a really worthwhile legacy of this debacle. Alternatively, DECC may have to consider whether BGS is fulfilling its role as guardian of this unique national resource.

Read the BGS Information Management Facilities Report 2009

From Andy Sims (Rec’d & Pub’d 5 November 2009)

Sir, I must add my voice to the concerns being expressed regarding the future of this facility and, particularly, to its invaluable contents. Together with colleagues, I have recently completed a visit to the Gilmerton facility to review and log some 470ft of core material from Tertiary sediments. As usual, the process for accessing the core data was simple and the service provided by the Gilmerton staff was excellent. If core material is to be moved, it will be essential to maintain similar easy and well-managed access to the material. Equally, the value of retaining the current staff's knowledge of the collection should not be underestimated.

The cores we reviewed recently were largely unconsolidated: there is no chance of such material’s surviving transport to Keyworth, even if well packed. The value of such cores will, therefore, will be significantly degraded by the proposed move. While more consolidated cores may be less affected by further transport, they will be exposed to the risk of additional fragmentation. Degradation to this unique dataset seems not to have been considered by BGS in the review process and I am glad that it has been raised now by Bob Leppard in this correspondence. As I have said in an emailed letter to the PESGB on this topic, we would not stand for geological vandalism of key outcrops and, I would argue, should consider damage to unique core material in transit to be equally unacceptable.

I regret that BGS appear to have failed to consult widely enough on this proposal and also that the Geological Society seems to have overlooked the consultation (see reply from Edmund Nickless, below: Ed.). It strikes me that the Society should have a reasoned opinion on the fate of a unique, national geological dataset and that such an opinion should be formed as a matter of urgency.

From John Collinson (Rec’d & Pub’d 4 November 2009)

Sir, Bob Leppard’s letter in the November Geoscientist (see below) drew attention to disquiet among users of the Gilmerton Core Store over the BGS decision to transfer the important offshore well archive to a new facility at Keyworth. Bob made a strong case against this decision and I will not repeat it. I am more concerned here with the unsatisfactory way in which I feel the decision was made, the rather bizarre consultation process, and the role of the Society in that process.

The decision, announced in August, took all users of the Gilmerton facility that I have contacted by surprise. In their reply to an initial letter from Professor John Underhill (to the PESGB Newsletter) BGS Executive Director John Ludden (a member of GSL Council) and his Director of Information Richard Hughes, asserted that extensive consultation had taken place, including contributions from universities, the oil industry and the Geological Society. The Editor of Geoscientist quoted these assertions alongside Bob Leppard’s letter in the November issue.

The single consultative meeting, which took place at the Natural History Museum in May, was attended by some 30 invited participants. These were dominated by BGS personnel, many of whom had little or no direct experience of the oil industry, and a collection of representatives of organisations - some of questionable relevance to the issue of offshore core storage. They included representatives of the British Antarctic Survey, the Ground Forum, the Highways Agency, the Coal Authority, the Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, EurGeosurveys and – most bizarrely - the Russian Geological Research Institute. Not a single representative with close contact to core store users was present. No-one from either the PESGB or the Petroleum Group of the Geological Society was present. Nor were there representatives from overseas organisations with similar responsibilities, such as the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, which has great experience of managing core collections in advanced and efficient ways.

The Geological Society was (apparently) represented at the meeting by its Executive Secretary; although it is possible that he attended in his capacity as a member of the Board of BGS, in which case the Geological Society would not have been formally represented, as Ludden and Hughes suggest. In whatever capacity he did attend, I am not aware that the Executive Secretary made any serious effort to find out the views of core store users, for example through the Petroleum Group. Nor, as far as I am aware, did he report back to the Society membership after the meeting.

No notice of this consultation was published either online or in Geoscientist. Does this therefore mean that the Executive Secretary decided the Society’s position? I would be interested to ask what advice the Executive Secretary gave to the consultative group, what evidence and opinions were collected beforehand to support that advice, and from whom such evidence and opinions were taken.

Without such clarification, one might be excused from inferring that the Executive Secretary attended the meeting only to help ink the BGS rubber stamp.

Edmund Nickless replies: John Collinson is correct in his belief that the Society was, nominally, consulted over the issue of the Gilmerton Core Store relocation. However things did not unfold in quite the way he suggests.

The Society received notice of the BGS Information Management Facilities Review, of which the Gilmerton Core Store formed part, on 12 January 2009. The letter invited me to become a member of the “Stakeholder Review Panel”, alongside representatives of other bodies, some of whose names Collinson cites. However I neither took up this invitation nor responded to the letter. The letter arrived just as we were preparing for the Council Residential Meeting, possibly the busiest period in the calendar apart from the Society AGM. Sadly, by the time that event was behind us, the invitation had been forgotten. As a result, I canvassed no opinions – because, contrary to Collinson’s assertion, I had no involvement in the process and was not present at the May meeting in the Natural History Museum. The original invitation having been overlooked, and no follow-up letter received from BGS, notice of the consultation was not advertised to the Fellowship in Geoscientist or online.

From Robert Leppard (Rec’d & Pub’d 23 September 2009)

Sir, The British Geological Survey (BGS) stores one cut of all offshore and onshore cores drilled in and around the UK. Offshore cores are stored in Edinburgh in a high-quality, secure store whose facilities have been upgraded over the years to provide three large inspection rooms which can be opened up to produce one large area that is ideal for core workshops. There is enough spare capacity to accommodate new cores and cuttings for the next 30 to 35 years. Onshore cores are stored at Keyworth, near Nottingham. Current users of the Edinburgh facility are happy with the location and quality of service. Edinburgh is a capital city with an excellent transport network of flights, trains, taxis and buses together with an outstanding choice of accommodation, restaurants and evening entertainment.

On 10 August BGS were granted planning permission to build an extension to their storage facility at Keyworth and a press release was issued on 25 August (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/news/NEWS/gilmerton_consolidation.pdf). Once this has been constructed they will move all the offshore cores from Edinburgh to the new facility during 2010. The cost of the extension, transport etc. will cost tax payers several million pounds.

The reason for moving approximately one million feet of core (175,000 boxes) from Scotland to England is to have all the onshore and offshore cores under one roof for the good of the science, although it would be very rare for anyone to want to view both onshore and offshore cores at the same time. Access to the core will become problematic for users as Keyworth is 16.5 miles from East Midlands airport which is served by a few flights per day from Aberdeen (Eastern Airways) and Edinburgh (Bmi baby) but for visitors from other destinations it is likely to be a long drive, or train and a taxi. Potential clients may decide to make arrangements to view the operators’ cut of the core at a viewing facility in a more accessible location (e.g. Iron Mountain at Aberdeen).

There are other problems with moving the cores due to the sheer scale of the operation and the fact that it will have to be contracted out to individuals who have no sympathy for the cargo. Cores are heavy and the majority are stored in cardboard boxes, which need to be kept horizontal to prevent core moving to one end of the box, and which were never designed for transportation. Many of the cores are in a fragile condition, especially the Tertiary sandstones which are poorly cemented at best. Transporting these cores will result in the deterioration of the cores and there is the risk of further damage to or loss of cores. Now that operators are no longer required to store core from decommissioned fields this is the only remaining set of core for some wells. The transfer will need several hundred truck journeys from Edinburgh to Keyworth and with the round trip of 580 miles this operation will release tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

So the Sheriff of Nottingham wants to steal all the Scottish cores from Edinburgh and store them in Keyworth. It smacks of Edward I stealing the Stone of Scone in 1298 and keeping it in St Edward’s chair in Westminster Abbey - until it was officially returned in 1996. How long before Scotland demands that its geological cores are returned to their rightful place?

It would be better for them not to be moved in the first place. Your feelings on this matter should be sent to John Ludden, The Executive Director, British Geological Survey, Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG

Read the BGS Information Management Facilities Report 2009

Sea level short termism

From Paul Lovatt-Smith (Rec’d 4.11; Pub’d 5.11.2009)

Sir, I write in regard to the public debate on sea level rise as a consequence of global warming and the contribution that we as geologists can make to this debate. It seems to me that too much focus is being placed on the relatively short-term future, the next 91 years till 2100. A typical figure often quoted is the IPCC prediction of 18-76 cm. This is leading to a general perception that the scale of sea level rise will be of the same order (ie tens of centimetres). There is little or no discussion of the total sea level rise after equilibrium is reached.

I am no expert in this field but from what I have read on the sea level and temperature data for the last few hundred thousand years (eg E J Rohling et al in Nature Geoscience, 2009) I make the following “rule of thumb” conclusion: sea level changes correlate extremely well with global temperature fluctuations by approximately 10m per degree Celsius. Taking the Met Office’s latest prediction of temperature rise by 2100 under a “business as usual” CO₂ scenario of 4 degrees C my rule of thumb would predict an eventual rise in sea level of around 40m.

The rate of this change is another subject for debate but has been estimated as being up to 5m per century in the past (Rohling, same paper). My point is that there is a perception gap between the tens of centimetres rise talked about in the public domain at the moment and the tens of meters rise which are predicted by the recent geological past. Am I right and if so, surely we as geologists should be doing something to make people more aware of this?

Bristol’s not alone

From Andy Lane (Rec’d & Pub’d 3.11.2009)

Sir, I too applaud the Bristol tutors for their initiative (Editorial, Geoscientist 19.11); but plaudits should also go to other institutions that have not caved in to Government "blackmail" on adult education.

The North East Centre for Lifelong Learning (jointly run by Sunderland and Newcastle Universities) are running a newly structured programme, essentially self-financing, that caters for the full range of interests in adult education. Importantly there is good provision for those wishing to start or continue geological studies. Students enter the scheme by buying a "season ticket" that gives them access to any course they might choose. Making full use of their membership means that in effect their courses are no more expensive than last academic year when the Government subsidy was still operating.

Early days, yes, but the system seems to be working well. Geology is still there as a major component, but with the added advantage that students can try other topics too - it works both ways. I am simply a part-time tutor on the scheme, but I have to take my hat off to the full time staff and the work they have put in to developing it. They really do deserve our applause.

Hydraulic Despotism - alive and well in China

From Jonathan Harrop (Rec’d 28.10; Pub’d3.11.2009)

Sir, “Harappan Collapse” (Geoscientist 19/9) explains the demise of the Indus Valley Civilisation, some 4000 years ago - monsoon rains declined, and the Indus and its tributaries ceased to provide the water supply necessary for the type of agriculture practiced. Without its agricultural base, this highly organised society could not function. It was not, however, lack of water per se that caused the collapse (the Indus has always had plenty of that): it was the ending of reliable floods. The Indus Valley Civilisation was of a form, known sociologically as “hydraulic despotism”, and similar societies appeared in the ancient world in various areas from Egypt to China. They were arguably the most rigid societies that have ever existed.

Hydraulic despotism developed under specific geo-climatic conditions - arid flood plains which were reliably and regularly flooded by large, silt-bearing rivers. The societies themselves typically featured a very powerful, centralised state with an all-pervasive and highly bureacratised civil service which directed virtually all aspects of life. The rationale for this socio-political system was the absolute necessity for irrigation to be managed on a massive scale in order to maximise agricultural output and to minimize flood damage. Without proper organisation, large floods in an otherwise dry environment, are of little agricultural value. Hydraulic despotism ensured that central government was well informed, via its civil service, particularly about river behaviour (the ancient Nilometer can still be seen at Aswan). Furthermore, governmental directives, via the state bureaucracy, could be articulated in a comprehensible manner to the workforce without being deflected by the hierarchical vagaries inherent in other social systems.

Given that agriculture was dependent on annual floods, it was necessarily seasonal work, leaving the mass of the population available for other work during “off-seasons”. Under these circumstances and under rigid state control, education flourished and empires expanded beyond the plains where they had originated. Most notable of all, however, was the hydraulic penchant for building-work - extensive urbanisation at Harappa, the Great Wall of China, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Most impressive of all was the Great Pyramid at Giza, which remained the tallest building in the world for 4000 years, until 1899 saw the construction of the Eiffel Tower.

Hydraulic states declined for a range of reasons. The diminution of monsoon rains ended the Indus Valley civilisation. Although surprisingly resistant to change by earlier foreign colonisation, hydraulic despotism in Egypt slowly declined under Arab control; its final vestiges only disappeared with the construction of the first Aswan Dam. China, however, has bucked the historical trend.

The philosophy of Confucius (a state bureaucrat who lived some six or seven centuries before the unification of China) still resonates deeply with the Chinese psyche. He spoke of a rationally ordered and understandable cosmos, and the importance of a well educated bureaucracy to manage human society within it. He was the product of and advocate for hydraulic despotism. The emperors of the Chin Dynasty inherited the system from the pre-dynastic states, and little has changed since - even under the Nationalist Kuomintang or the short-term occupations by Mongolia and Japan. The Chinese Communist Party - the latest state incumbent - despite its rhetoric, has preserved that country’s rigid, bureacratised socio-political system in a way that would be clearly recognisable to Confucius. Although it may have disappeared long ago elsewhere, hydraulic despotism remains alive and well in China.

Evil scientists?

From Iain Bews. (Rec’d & Pub’d 3 November 2009)

Sir, I read with interest Michael Price’s article in October’s Geoscientist, in which he suggests that our Neolithic ancestors sought to understand the environment and adapt it (developing into scientists), whereas their Mesolithic contemporaries exploited it (developing into politicians); a genetic difference is even hinted at. I agree with Dr Price regarding the dismal state of political apathy, and the ignorance of many ministers to sound scientific advice and the blindingly obvious; government advisers even get sacked these days for expressing opinions based on science.

However, the contention that hunter-gatherers were exploiting the environment and its contents is misleading. Archaeological evidence shows that these people lived successfully and probably undramatically for thousands of years, even in Britain both before and after the Younger Dryas cold snap. Using Eisler’s terminology, they lived in a Partnership Society, in harmony with nature. The encroaching pastoralists were the originators of the Dominator culture which we live in today. Surely it is we, inheritors of the relatively recent ‘static’ lifestyle, who are exploiting the environment. The transition from subsistence to agriculture was of course the start of a cataclysmic event for life on earth, which will doubtless be recorded as such in the future fossil record.

If the pastoralists were the early scientists, then surely we are the baddies? The politicians are, in this case, just helpless, perhaps even genetically undeveloped, oafs who are struggling to understand the developed world which we scientists have thrust upon them.

Online only Journal? Bring it on!

From Michael Welland (Rec’d & Pub’d 21 October 2009)

Sir, I am, quite frankly, flabbergasted at the outrage recorded over the plan to move to publishing online. Perhaps the outraged might contemplate the following:

A good colour printer is available for £50
Yes, we all browse/scan online offerings, but how many of the papers available to us do we really wish to read (in the traditional sense) and therefore cherish on paper? I agree, I too prefer to read a hard copy, but I enjoy the opportunity to select only those papers that are of interest.
The answer to question 2 is, I would suspect, 20% at most. Therefore, the hardcopy lobby supports the sacrifice of monumental numbers of trees and weighty additions to any recycling efforts, never mind postal costs (when you can get anyone to deliver anything), publishing house costs, the energy required to rip things out, the filing space needed to organise those things, and all the associated greenhouse gas emissions.
The year is 2009: connecting to the internet is hardly an intellectual challenge for someone whose intellect draws them to the publications of the Geological Society, and, I repeat, a printer costs £50.
The incremental charge of £10 strikes me as eminently reasonable.
I am of a certain age myself - this is no excuse!

From John Milson (Rec’d & Pub’d 7 October 2009)

Sir, I have been surprised by the complete absence, in either the pages of Geoscientist or in your more capacious on-line mail box, of letters in support of the switch to an electronic option for the society’s journals. I would like to rectify that. The opponents of this change seem to me to be lacking in any sense of proportion, and sometimes compound that by being needlessly offensive (viz Stephen Dulson and his reference to “nerdy teletubbies”).

A sense of proportion? Stephen calls the £10 annual charge outrageous, and Tim Horscroft twice describes it as punitive, yet it is less, per issue, than the cost of a Sunday newspaper. Given the catalogue of benefits the opponents of the change claim to derive from their paper copies, I would have thought that they would be prepared to “stump up” (Peter Sykes) at least that much.

Nor have I much respect for the grasp of logic shown by those who suggest that pdf-only users be given a discount, rather than the paper-copy brigade be surcharged. This is pure semantics – the net real result is still that one group pays more than the other. And if this move is, as Peter fears, not merely a laudable attempt to save money but also “some green carbon-friendly policy”, then am I only Fellow who welcomes it? For me the new regime will be a welcome release from the embarrassment at having this expensive-to-produce, hard-to-recycle and impossible-to-shelve publication regularly arriving on my doormat.

Clearly, I use my JGS rather differently from your other correspondents, most of whom either state or imply that they read it avidly from cover to cover. That is not the way that I treat it. For me, the most important part of the journal is the back cover, where I may find listed one or two papers that I must read, a number of others that I would like to read if I get time, some that, while not immediately interesting I know I might read in the future if my work takes a certain path, and a number that I know I will never read or ever want to. I make no apology for this selectivity. It is not an indication, as Stephen seems to suppose, that I do not keep myself up-to-date with research, but an acceptance on my part of the fact that to do so I am going to have to read articles in many journals and not just in the JGS. I do feel that those who claim that their interest would wane if they could not receive a paper copy cannot have been very interested in geology in the first place.

Budding photogeologists beware!

From David Greenwood (Rec'd & Pub'd 21 October 2009)

Sir, With reference to the recent correspondence on photogeology, I would like to draw the attention of potential geology students to a problem that can arise in using the stereoscope. There are a small number of people (of whom I am unfortunately one) who do not have full stereoscopic vision. This disability usually shows up at an early age in difficulties encountered playing ball games and must be compensated for in some way by the brain which relies on parallax instead of a 3-D image to create an impression of its surroundings.

Because of this defect, at an early stage in my career in the 1960s, I found it impossible to use a stereoscope to interpret air photographs and now find I am unable to view either 3-D films or TV. With the increasing use of these techniques in geology, perhaps it would be wise for students to be checked for this defect before embarking on a three-year degree course in the same way that some geology departments used to test future optical petrologists for colour blindness.

Wrong on Snow

From Max Barton (Rec’d 16 October; Pub’d 20 October 2009)

Sir, I was as delighted by the apposite article by Michael Price as I was disappointed by your editorial concerning C. P. Snow and The Two Cultures. Usually, your editorials are entertaining and informative but on this subject you were so wide of the mark as to suggest that you have seriously misunderstood both the content and context of C. P. Snow's contribution to our understanding of public affairs.

The original reaction to Snow was appreciative and sympathetic but affairs turned nasty when F. R. Leavis, then Professor of English Literature at Cambridge, went into print. Leavis was a representative of the extreme kind of literary figure to whom the form of expression was everything and the content irrelevant. This attitude manifested itself in his condemnation of Snow by totally ignoring what Snow was saying and instead lapsed into a tirade of vitriolic abuse (which appalled many within literary circles). Leavis's extreme elevation of form over content makes him an inappropriate person to be cited within the pages of Geoscientist.

We can assume that with Leavis's prejudice he would have had no respect for any of the great geological literature of the past and would have been quite content had neither the industrial revolution nor the scientific enlightenment ever happened. As for the significance and importance of the two cultures today, and its unfortunate continuation within government circles, I must refer you to the C. P. Snow Lecture of 2009 at Cambridge by Lisa Jardine, abridged in the Times of 15 October 2009, page 36.

London platform – mind the gap

From Hugh Owen (Rec’d & Pub’d 14 October 2009)

Sir, With reference to the article by Michael de Freitas and Katherine Royse (Geoscientist 19.10 pp 20,21) the revisiting of the London Platform is to be applauded. It allows the re-opening of the vexed question of the “Variscan Front” of authors in relation to the southern boundary of the Platform.

The difference of opinion regarding this alleged Variscan structure is well illustrated in the revised Thames Valley Regional Guide (Sumbler et al. 1996). The available deep borehole data indicates that this so-called Front is a Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary structure and there is no evidence that it is of Variscan origin. The evidence available indicates a massif of late Palaeozoic origin (Variscan), the London – Brabant Massif, progressively on-lapped by early Mesozoic sediments and probably completely submerged in England by the Oxfordian. Late Jurassic sediments are preserved within graben structures in the southern area of the London Platform (e.g. Plumptre 1959, Owen 1971).

Major rift faulting occurred at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary, with elevation of the London Platform and subsidence of the Weald graben, the bounding fault being a little north of the modern Chalk cuesta face. The Early Cretaceous sedimentation history of the subsiding Wealden graben is one of the erosion of the Jurassic and subsequently Palaeozoic sediments of the highlands of the Platform to the north. This analysis led Perce Allen (e.g. 1976, 1981) to revise his concept of the Wealden environment in southern England. It also sparked off the search for oil in the region immediately to the south of the bounding fault. Movement along a similar trending fault along the Thames line led to the removal of Lower Gault over the northern London area and there is some evidence of instability along this line within the Chalk.

Subsequent re-juvenation of the southern bounding fault with a southward directing thrust is evident in the Gault south of the Chalk cuesta face at Shere, Surrey (Owen 1963) and in the M20 cuttings between Wrotham and Hollingbourne. The evidence here is of an early to mid-Pleistocene date after the formation of the sea-cliffs of Chalk now the Chalk cuesta face.

References

Allen, P. 1976. Wealden of the Weald: a new model. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. 86, 389-437.
Allen, P. 1981. Pursuit of Wealden Models. Journal of the Geological Society, London 138, 375-405.
Owen, H .G. 1963. Some sections in the Lower Gault of the Weald. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 74, 35-53, pl.3
Owen, H, G. 1971 The stratigraphy of the Gault in the Thames Estuary and its bearing on the
Mesozoic tectonic history of the area. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association 82, 187-207.
Plumptre, J.H. 1959. Underground waters of the Kent Coalfield. Transactions of the Institute of Mining Engineers 119, 155-169, pls 4-8.
Sumbler, M.G. (Compiler) British Regional Geology: London and the Thames Valley. 4th Edition. London HMSO for the British Geological Survey.

Planes tabled

From Derek Morris (Rec’d 11 October; Pub’d 13 October 2009)

Sir, Robin Nicholson [Geoscientist Vol. 19, 10, October 2009 - see below] asked whether aerial photographic surveys arose from wartime practice? Indeed they did but the start point was in the First World War.

In 1917 the British were flying cameras over the harbours in the Heligoland in order to understand the distribution of the German Navy. The man who realised the possible commercial advantages of such surveys was Daddy Wills, who had been a photographer with the Royal Navy Air Service. He formed Aerofilms, whose first negative is dated 26 July 1919, and the company name survives today.

Between then and 1939 very large aerial photographic surveys were flown by British companies for oil and mining companies throughout Africa and the Middle East. The Orinoco Delta in Venezuela was flown in the 1920s and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company – subsequently BP - awarded Aerofilms annual contracts to fly and map their concessions in Iran.

During the Second World War the most important development was the establishment at Medmenham, between Henley and Marlow, of the Photographic Intelligence Unit. Constance Babington-Smith’s book “Evidence in Camera” is a popular account of their work, published in 1957 and re-issued in 1974.

This Unit brought together a wide range of specialists, cartographers, photographers, geographers and photo-grammetrists, plus the very important Wild A5 stereo-plotter from Aerofilms. At one time over 2,000 people were employed and it was from this group of experts that the Hunting Group recruited the men, who immediately after the war were to manage its air survey companies in the UK, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand.

In 1946 the main problem was to demonstrate to engineers and surveys that an aerial survey could provide the same accuracy as conventional ground-based survey methods. Huntings did this for British Rail with a survey at 1:480 of Bournemouth Central station, which was a major breakthrough.

At the Overseas Geological Survey all geologists had to undertake a course in photo-geology and in the 1960s Dr John Norman left Huntings to lecture at the Royal School of Mines on photogeology and subsequently the interpretation of satellite imagery.

Huntings branched out into photo-interpretation for oil and mining companies in 1950 and conducted many important surveys on a world-wide basis, such as Egypt for the UNDP, and throughout Africa and the Middle East.

It should also be emphasised that the World Bank and other organisations supported country-wide photographic surveys, such as one in the 1950s of what is now Pakistan. In 1961 I used this photography during a ground water survey of the Porali River basin, west of Karachi. Equally important was the aerial photography of the entire basement shield in Saudi Arabia, which provided the basis for a 700,000 line kilometre low-level airborne geophysical survey.

One survey of interest was carried out in the early to mid 1970s for the Libyan government over three basement areas in the south of the country; Jabal Aywanat, the Tibesti mountains and a third area bordering Niger. Huntings flew aerial photography and established ground control. The geological field teams then used ERTS1 imagery to navigate between the areas across the trackless desert. Perhaps this was one of the very first “for real” uses of space imagery in geological exploration.

Finally, it should be recognised how skilful were the navigators, who over vast areas of desert, savannah and other featureless terrains flew the accurate flight plans needed to obtain high quality photography without the aid of Doppler or satellite navigation systems.

From Robin Nicholson (Rec’d & Pub’d 13 August 2009)

Sir, Ted Nield writes interestingly of D.N. Wadia and changes in geological mapping practice since Wadia's day. He makes no reference, however, to the vast improvement arising some 60 years or so ago with the availability to the field geologist of vertical aerial photographs.

Perhaps he takes them for granted? Not only did they provide an obvious sight of the face of the Earth as one might say, but also the capacity of stereoscopic cover (with a minimum of ground control), allowing the preparation of detailed topographic maps. Did such aerial surveys arise from wartime practice? Certainly the RAF seems to have photographed wide and far in the years immediately following World War II. But whatever the cause I would argue for a role in the evolution of field survey for such photography as decisive as that played by satellite images, GPS etc listed by Ted Nield as dividing us from the times of such heroes as Wadia.

Unsafe practice

From Alan Edwards (Rec’d 23, Pub’d 24 September 2009)

Sir, My comments relate to a picture that was presented as part of an article entitled ‘Harappan Collapse”, which appeared in Geoscientist Vol 19. No.9. The picture shows members of the field team at the bottom of a deep trial pit with bystanders sitting around the edge of the pit.

I work for an environmental consultancy and we spend considerable time and effort educating/supporting our employees (many of whom are geologists/hydrogeologists) to be safe when carrying out field work.

Being buried is one of the greatest risks facing a field geologist (from stock piles, collapsing trial pits etc) and I can’t help but think that it was totally irresponsible to show two members of the field team carrying out field work within an unsupported deep trial pit. Junior geologists or geologists who don’t know any better may look at this picture and assume that this is the way that things are done. It is particularly inappropriate given that a young geologist was killed last year in the Cotswolds after being buried in an unsupported trial pit.

I am sure you will agree that we need to promote health and safety and to ensure that geologists/hydrogeologists don’t endanger themselves or others. Geoscientist magazine has a particular responsibility in this matter as it is distributed throughout the professional community.

Editor replies: Alan is quite right - I have now added a safety warning to the caption on the online version.

Cores undervalued

From Robert Leppard (Rec’d & Pub’d 23 September 2009)

Wadia tributes

From Bruce Yardley (Rec'd 20 August; Pub'd 1 September 2009)

Sir, The excellent pieces by Geoff Glasby and Mike Searle on DN Wadia and the geology of Nanga Parbat (Geoscientist, August 2009) reminded me of my own introduction to the geology of this region, as a post-doc auditing petrology classes by Peter Misch at the University of Washington in the mid-70s.

Peter Misch was a young wunderkind geologist, sent out as a scientist on the ill-fated German climbing expedition to Nanga Parbat in 1934. As well as supporting the climbing team, and playing a leading role in the unsuccessful rescue attempts after the main climbing group was trapped by snow high on the mountain, Misch mapped and sampled extensively. On return to Germany he was ordered to hand over his collections and notes to a more politically correct geologist, and rather than do this he left for China, teaching at the Sun Yat Sen University in Canton, and latterly in Yunnan, where he also carried out extensive fieldwork. Misch got out to the USA after the revolution and got himself a job at the University of Washington in part on the strength of being an ardent supporter of granitisation, very much in sympathy with the then head of geology, George Goodspeed.

Misch published his views on the origins of granite in an extensive article in American Journal of Science in 1949 "Metasomatic granitization of batholithic dimensions", in which he contrasts synkinematic granitisation at Nanga Parbat with static granitisation in Yunnan. Over the years he was reluctantly forced to accept the existence of increasing numbers of magmatic granites, but to the end he insisted that the ones on which he started his career in Asia were truly examples of granitisation. Of course we never got a trip to check those ones out! Misch was a great pioneer field geologist who opened up new areas in the North Cascades in the 1950s, and was also ahead of his time in trying to understand the interactions between metamorphism and deformation. By the time I knew him his mountaineering days were long past but he had a great fund of stories with which he generously peppered his lectures and entertained his colleagues over coffee. A favourite gambit was to take a sip from his cup and then announce in his thick German accent: "You know, the only time I had yak butter tea that was not rancid, was when I was served by a princess.....".

From Arthur Warden (Rec’d 25 August; Puvb’d 1 September 2009)

The old order changeth yielding place to new
and God fulfils himself in many ways
lest one good custom should corrupt the world’

Morte d’Arthur
(Alfred Lord Tennyson)

Your resounding tribute to Dr Darashaw Nosherwan Wadia was truly inspiring and a well merited tribute to the father figure of Indian geology. Accolades to the enduring geological foundations he laid still resonated when I arrived in New Delhi in the mid –eighties charged by UNDP New York with undertaking a critical review of the GSI’s geological mapping programme.

As I criss-crossed the sub continent during the summer heat and monsoon rains it occurred to me that this indeed was the ‘jewel in the crown’ of any consultancy I was likely to get. Acclimatisation to the vastly varied geology formed the essential foundation of the review required of me. So initially I was based centrally in Hyderabad, from where I travelled out to the other five post graduate regional training centres where GSIs new intake were given a strong practically oriented induction into mineral exploration and other ‘hands on’ aspects of economic geology.

As we all know, geology thrives on controversy, as I found during my visit to Kashmir. The director of the training centre there insisted on taking me part way on a traverse across the Himalayas. He strongly contended that the classical, alpine stacked nappe model had been overplayed. Certainly on the traverses we did, this appeared to be the case. Evidence of extreme crustal shortening as indicated by nappe stacking seemed to be lacking. Also absent was evidence of major tectonic breaks in the sequence. Moreover in palaeontological faunal and lithological terms the succession seemed virtually continuous.

Finally, the account of the pioneering role of Dr Wadia does tend to give the impression that the mapping of virginal terrain was virtually limited to the first half of the twentieth century. But this is not true world wide e.g. the British Geological surveys in Africa. When I joined the Geological Survey in Somaliland in October 1955 I spent most of the next five years entirely off the beaten track on foot with ten camels for periods of up to six months mapping pristine areas on a reconnaissance scale of 1:125 000.

Loo paper threat

(Readers of these letters are referred below to an advance-published explanation from Neal Marriott of the AGM-ratified Council decision to move to online-only as the default position for Journal subscribers. Ed.)

From R A Nicholls (Rec’d 25.9; Pub’d 1.10.2009)

Sir, I would like to add my name to those who object to these proposals. I do not have a computer any more and get by very well without. Reading text on screen is very tiresome. Reading text in good magazines (such as yours) is interesting and recreational. And far more convenient. I can read it in an armchair with a glass of something (or other) in my hand.

I am a retired Fellow – which is not to say I am idle. Computer screens are slow and tiring, and I do not appreciate my being forced to do something for the benefit of others, who do not reciprocate.

And many thanks for your enjoyable contributions – how arid they would be on screen!

From Robert Hird (Rec’d & Pub’d 1 September 2009)

Sir, I was reading the letters section of the Geoscientist and one letter entitled “Loo paper threat” caught my eye.

I agree with Stephen Dulson that there should not be a £10 charge to continue receiving a paper copy of the journals. I receive electronic copies of Geotechnique and Ground Improvement through the Institute of Civil Engineers membership but the annual cost of both these publications is considerably less than the paper copy. Therefore should members wish to receive the Engineering Geology and Hydrology journal online via PDF acrobat they should be offered a substantial discount. Like Stephen I also have problems finding the time to read online journals (including up dating CPD records) as there is just not enough hours in the 7 day working week but I do like to have a hard copy of a journal to read when I have a spare moment.

One thing I wouldn’t mind receiving electronically however, mainly since the post here is erratic, is Geoscientist online (and not the paper copy). This would save the society some publication and post costs and you may find other overseas members are of the same opinion. The society subscription is reasonable when compared to other organisations including the IMarEST whose fees are considerably higher.

Editor writes: Geoscientist is already available to everyone, free of charge, both online, and as a printable PDF.

From Susan Hay (Rec’d 31 August; Pub’d 1 September 2009)

Sir, I quite agree with the sentiments expressed by Stephen Dulson regarding the increased payment by members still wishing to receive their journal(s) in paper format.

I would have expected that in a society such as this, before such a major change, some form of debate, probably electronically, would have been held to gauge the fellows' feelings on the issue - rather than simply announcing the change in a very low key way, possibly hoping members would not notice until November.

While I understand why many members might wish to have their journal electronically, I spend too much time looking at the flat screen and prefer to read my journals on the printed page. I do not understand why the Society finds it necessary to penalise those who wish to continue in the current format. Surely a more realistic way forward is to offer a reduction to those who take their journal electronically in recognition of their reduce cost to the society, and to encourage increased uptake, as is common commercial practice, such as in the power supply industry.

From Colin Smith (Rec’d 17, Pub’d 18 August 2009)

Sir, I find electronic journals intolerable. OK for searching, hopeless for reading. I tend to put my journals beside the bed and read them on an evening and I would never consider doing reading them on a laptop. I spend enough of my life staring a computers as it is. I have been a member of the Society since it amalgamated with the institution, it costs twice as much as my chemical society subscription, three times as much as the IAH and society of chemical industry and over twice as much as my SiLC subscription. Of all the societies of which I am a member it offers the least value for money and if the paper journals were withdrawn I would seriously consider going with them and ditching my Chartered status.

From Tim Horscroft (Rec’d 17, Pub’d 18 August 2009)

Sir, Like your correspondent in the recent issue of Geoscientist, I reacted with similar horror to the proposal to increase the subscription fee by 10 Pounds for members who wish to continue to receive the hardcopy of the journal. The increase is punitive and, like Basil Fawlty's view that the very existence of guests interferes with the running of his hotel, seems to emanate from a similar philosophy.

I appreciate that most publishers (and especially the societies) are gradually going over to online-only subscriptions, but this is not an option for many of us who do not have regular access to the net, much less to a colour printer (and colour is now essential to understand many figures). Moreover, few of us actually read, in the truest sense of the word, online. The screen is simply a means to show us what we have retrieved and to enable a quick first pass of what we have found. The actual comprehension of material still takes place on the printed page and most people's productive thoughts occur by browsing through journals on the bus or the sofa. This is prompted by perusing contents lists (like on the back of the journal) and being prompted by things that we would not otherwise have thought about.

If the Society feels that its revenue is under pressure I suggest a slight reduction for those who wish to receive the journal as electronic only, as a way to attract more subscribers, and not a measure that is demonstratively punitive and almost deliberately stigmatising of those who do not have on-line access. The journal is the best general geological journal that there is. Rather than driving away readers I suggest you should instead build on your strengths.

From Jane Angus (Rec’d 17, Pub’d 18 August 2009)

Sir, May I add my cries to those of Stephen Doulson in favour of retaining the paper journal rather than online as default.

First, reading online takes three times longer. I cannot give the citation from one of the Library studies journals, but most of us have found this for ourselves.

Second, double columns add to the delays, especially with small screens, and reduce retention of content. A view of the double pages, including figures, does help to retain content and rechecking.

Finally, spilling coffee on paper is less expensive than the alternative.

From Peter Sykes (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

Sir, In the Letters page of Geoscientist August 2009 you asked if anyone else was unhappy about the imminent loss of their paper copy of their chosen Journal(s) unless they stump up an extra £10 for the privilege.

I look forward to receiving my copy through the post each quarter year. I like it and don’t care if shelves are burdened! I will have to sign up and pay if that is the only way I can get it in future. However I am not happy about it.

Do our subscriptions not cover the cost of printing and postage to each Fellow anymore? Or is this some green carbon-friendly policy that the Society has decided upon? It would be nice to have an explanation from the Society on this.

From Sarah Dack (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

Sir, I'm with Nick - although I'd probably read some of it online, I'm likely to get it stripped out as 'spam' by the company I work for, and rather like Mr Dulson I tend to normally read it while doing something else (train/cooking/etc.) and you can’t do that easily with a laptop! Besides, I then recycle them, so it doesn't take up room on my shelves! I could receive it, print it and then read it on the train etc, but again this isn't overall saving the planet as its still in paper copy!

Seems a bit harsh to penalise all of us who prefer the old technology. Given that the 'sustainability' issues aren't going to work for many of us - isn’t this just a way to put the fees up again?

From Guy Cassidy (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

Sir, I see the hot debate in this months Geoscientist is that of online journals v. paper copies.

I also see there is a similarity here with the CGeol applications we received this year, for the London round of assessments. As the application documents were dished out electronically, the first thing we all did was to print them out - thus saving no energy or trees! This point was raised, en masse, at the time.

I feel the same can be said for the Geoscientist journal - I personally would never get around to reading it if it wasn’t for the fact it lands on my doormat and I place it on my coffee table. Sometimes two or three can build up before I get told to "read it or lose it" by my better half.

I would strongly object to being charged more to continue receiving the journal as it has been distributed for years. There should, instead, be a discount for those who wish to save the planet and save on publishing costs by viewing their copy online.

From Phil Burris (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

Sir, As a Fellow I wanted add my voice to Stephen Dulson’s comment. While I agree on increasing choice and moving towards lower consumption of paper, I too find the hard copy of the Journal more useful than an electronic option. It also has the benefit of being accessible to other colleagues who may be interested (as non-geologists). I agree that discounting to subscribers who are at ease with the electronic version would be a fairer incentive and better approach.

From Stephen Dulson (Rec'd 10 June; Pub'd 17 June)

Sir, I was annoyed to read in “Society Business” in May’s Geoscientist, that those of us who wish to continue receiving our journals in the normal way will be charged an extra £10 in addition to our (in my opinion) already substantial subscription fees. This is outrageous.

Surely, in the current economic climate, the reasonable thing to do would be to offer a £10 discount to those who are joined at the hip to their laptops (like some nerdy Teletubbies) and insist on living their virtual lives online. I don’t recall being asked if I agreed with this proposal, but if I am sure that many people would have expressed similar views (many of my geological acquaintances admit to rarely reading the journal as it stands and if it is online then I am sure even more will “forget” to keep themselves up-to-date with research etc.). A bad thing.

I only really find time to read my professional literature at two locations. The first (and most obvious) I will not detail here and the second is on the train to and from work. Even if I did have possession of a laptop, the wisdom of flashing this around in South London is somewhat questionable, given the usual lateness of my journey home from the office. There are many other reasons which I won’t go into now. Is this proposal still under debate or will Fellows be stung regardless of their views?

From Steve Hencher (Rec’d & Pub’d 6 August 2009)

Sir, I saw the correspondence about paper copies of journals. I agree with Stephen Dulson; my interest would wane if unable to browse paper copies.

The IMMM did this some years ago for their familiar green journal which historically carried many important papers (to me) on rock slopes, underground excavation and rock masses. Since they stopped publishing the paper journal I have not looked at any papers from IMM despite having access to two electronic libraries through the Universities of Leeds and Hong Kong. I resigned from the society a couple of years ago having been a member for more than 25 years. I suspect that Geol Soc might suffer a similar loss of members if there are no longer paper journals – as I understand it, not even in many University libraries.

From Graham Blackbourn (Rec’d & Pub’d 6 August 2009)

I strongly agree with Stephen Dulson's views regarding paper copies of journals and other literature. I spend much of my life attached to my desktop or laptop, but flicking through a journal or magazine with a cup of tea in an armchair, deckchair or train is one of the more relaxing aspects of the job.

The numerous digital editions I receive rarely get opened, let alone read, unless they are of immediate importance to project work, since my inbox is full of more pressing calls on my time. I often use the Lyell Collection and similar electronic libraries for research purposes, and they are powerful resources, but for simply keeping up-to-date with current literature (surely a crucial aspect of CPD, which the Society encourages), nothing beats hard copy. Digital editions are doubtless cheaper to produce, but has anyone researched how many people read them (if only cursorily), compared with hard copy? I know I rarely do.

How about producing the journals on cheaper, lighter paper (even a newspaper format), saving on printing and postage costs? That would ensure that they were read, while leaving the Lyell Collection for long-term retrieval, and placing less strain on shelving and marriages?

The following Society at Large article, which is relevant to this issue, will appear in the September issue of Geoscientist. Editor

Changes to terms and conditions

As those who attended the AGM on 3 June this year will know, Council has decided to freeze Fellowship fees for most categories in 2010, to assist Fellows as much as possible during the current economic downturn.

At the same time, Council also approved a move to make the standard Fellowship subscription cover online access to journals only, and to introduce a £10 supplement for all those wishing to continue receiving a printed version. The proposal to introduce the supplementary charge for hard copy was raised at the AGM and met with no dissent.

The impact of these difficult economic times is being felt by the Society as it is by many of our Fellows. The concern for 2010 is to tighten control of costs while at the same time offering an affordable Fellowship fee. The print and postal distribution of journals to Fellows constitutes a considerable expense and is an obvious area for cost-saving, particularly as many Fellows have made it clear over the years that they find the compulsory delivery of a paper journal oppressive. Council has taken the view that now is the right time to adopt a more environmentally sensitive approach to journal circulation.

Most publishers agree and are now moving towards the adoption of online as standard, and Council believes that the majority of Fellows will be happy to receive online-only access. Council also believes it is only fair that the anticipated minority still wishing to receive a print copy should contribute to the cost of doing so.

What premium for wind?

From Robert Freer (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

Dr Stanton's analysis of the potential problems with wind farms (Geoscientist 19.9, p2) leaves little to add except to fill in a few details and to comment on his storage idea.

Large wind turbines generate their rated capacity only in winds of 15m/sec to 25m/sec,in sailing terms force 7 to force 9. Such winds don't happen very often in southern England; in fact figures published by OFGEM show that of the 81 wind farms in England only 12 have a capacity factor of 30% (percentage of time at full rating)and some as low as 5%-10%. And the total national output is small. All the turbines in the country produce only about 1.5% of our national energy demand and the fact that the output is unpredictable and liable to rapid changes as a gale blows through makes it very difficult to connect to the National Grid which was, for very good reasons, designed for a different purpose. To try to tweak the Grid to accommodate wind energy is the tail wagging the dog.

Storing energy as underground hot water might well be technically possible but after subtracting the power required to pump the water underground would not leave much energy to raise steam to a useful temperature. The other method of trying to accommodate the rapid changes in output from wind farms is to couple them to a conventional power station which is designed to be also capable of rapid change of output to match. The practical design which is suitable for this purpose is the Open Cyle Gas Turbine (OCGT) which unfortunately is also somewhat inefficient. The combination of wind farm plus OCGT is less efficient and creates more pollution than the more conventional Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) with the same output. And you have had to build two power stations instead of just one.

So why does anyone want to build windfarms? I assume the attraction for the Government is that they can be built quickly and give the impression of activity in using a "free" source of energy, even though the output is small and uneconomic and the activity largely wasted. But for developers, windfarms offer the prospect of a honeypot because we as taxpayers are having to pay a subsidy (already described by the International Energy Agency as "over-generous") for the energy they produce. And now a double subsidy for offshore wind farms.

As the chief executive of a major energy company is reported to have said: " without the subsidy no-one would build them". A few years ago a House of Lords committee estimated that the subsidy would reach £32 billion by 2020, and the recent Government report on Renewable Energy suggests it will be even higher. Can we really afford to go on building them?

From Mike Stephen (Rec’d & Pub’d 19 August 2009)

Sir, The contribution from Robert Freer highlights the greatest disadvantages of both wind and wave energy; that we have little or no control over output in terms of when and how much. It does not seem logical to feed electricity from such sources into the national grid, since expensive and inefficient over-capacity would be required to provide the necessary back-up. We cannot store large quantities of electrical energy, therefore the generated electricity should be converted to a form that is 'on tap' when we need to use it, such as potential or chemical energy. Dr Stanton's suggestion of generating hot water or steam is one possibility. Another might be pumped storage (as Dinorwig but powered by wind and waves rather than nuclear power). I also wonder whether using electricity from wind and waves to produce the cleanest fuel of all - hydrogen - from water and to compress it into suitable storage could be viable.

Reflections on a Zombie

From Peter F Owen (Rec'd and Pub'd 5 August 2009)

The illustrations of samples from the recently produced Virtual Seismic Atlas (ref.1) included a profile from the Faeroe-Shetland basin, on which was highlighted a strong reflector labeled ‘Opal A-Opal CT’ transition (figure 1). This identification is a perpetuation of one originally made in an article where the reflector was termed ‘Horizon E’ (ref. 2), and attributed to a reflection from slightly above a depth at which a sample rich in Opal CT was recovered from well UKCS 214/4-1. The blue ‘stratal’ reflector was correlated with a Middle Miocene unconformity.

On a well data summary panel (ref. 2, figure 3) ‘Horizon E’ is correlated with a drilling break at 2126m, while the two way time to that level is quoted as 2861 milliseconds. The implied average velocity to the reflector is therefore that of seawater - a physical impossibility, since there are over 500m of sediment above that level. It is much more likely that the time of ‘Horizon E’ corresponds to a depth of around 2250m (late Eocene unconformity), at the well location.

Besides this mis-correlation, there are several logical difficulties with the proposition that ‘Horizon E’ is due to a phase change between Opal ‘A’ and Opal ‘CT’. One of the reasons for suggesting that ‘Horizon E’ represents a reflection from a phase change is that it crosses ‘stratal reflectors’. The evidence for this is ambiguous, at best, and contrived (figure 1) at worst. The blue stratal reflector is depicted as crossing ‘Horizon E’ at an angle, even though all reflections in the vicinity are parallel to ‘Horizon E’ (figure 1, between the two vertical lines on the uninterpreted version). This is a remarkable coincidence, for everywhere else on the profile, the mid-Miocene unconformity (blue stratal reflector) is parallel with the adjacent seismic reflectors.

The phase change from Opal ‘A’ to Opal ‘CT’ occurs at a temperature of at least 350C. (ref. 2) and ‘Horizon E’ thus represents an isotherm of this temperature. This isotherm does not parallel the seabed (figure 1), as one might expect; in places it is parallel to an early Pliocene unconformity (EPU) requiring a rather special explanation. Both a ‘fossilised’ phase change, and one advancing by ‘slow creep’ (ref. 3), have been suggested. The first idea depends on a temperature gradient in the Pliocene some 3-4 times that of the present day, at the well location. An even greater temperature gradient would be necessary on the margins, and in the basin, to the north east of the well, where the thickness of the section between ‘Horizon E’ and the EPU is very much less than at the well location. In one area, ‘Horizon E’ is depicted as being cut out by the EPU (ref.1, figure 9), a geochemical impossibility. It is also difficult to reconcile these thickness variations with the ‘slow creep’ idea; the creep must have reached top gear in these areas.

The strength of the ‘Horizon E’ reflection implies that the sediments which it intersects contain a significant (probably more than 50%) fraction of material which has the potential to change phase – a diatom ooze was suggested as the precursor, in this example. ‘Horizon E’ appears to cross ‘stratal’ reflectors of some 250m in thickness, with virtually no variation in amplitude (figure 1), so it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the sediment composition must be relatively unchanged throughout. Such a thickness of uniformly diatom-rich sediment would be remarkable in its own right, but the observation that it apparently occurs on both sides of an unconformity is probably unprecedented. Perhaps more significantly, there is no hint of such a thick sequence of diatom-rich sediments at the well location (ref.2, fig 4).

An additional conundrum is that the phase change surface appears to have been fractured well before the Pliocene. It is very difficult to comprehend how the isotherm of 350C can change laterally in an abrupt fashion, to create the impression of a fault in uniformly diatom-rich sediments. If the faulting is real, the diagenetic front must correspond to a stratal boundary, but this cannot be the case, according to the proposed model, because the event is faulted where it appears to intersect dipping, stratal reflectors within the supposed thick diatom-rich sediments (figure 1, right side).

The reprocessed profile, produced by Fugro, has been converted to zero phase (John Makin, pers. comm.), which means that a reflection from an interface between low acoustic impedance (AI) sediment and high AI material has a characteristic trough-peak-trough pattern – well illustrated by the top basalt marker (figure 1). A similar form of reflection should occur at the boundary between Opal ‘A’ (low AI) and Opal ‘CT’ (high AI). The character of ‘Horizon E’ (peak-trough-peak) is closer to the response of a downward change from high AI to low AI, or even that of a thin (less than 15m) bed of low AI material.

In summary, the concept that ‘Horizon E’ is a reflection from a silica phase change depends on a dubious correlation of seismic data with depths in a well, requires a concatenation of several unlikely geological conditions, and does not match the character of the seismic reflection.

There are similarities between this ‘Zombie’ (ref. 4) and the Chicxulub Crater (ref 5). The same lack of precision in correlating events, and absence of a reality check, has allowed germination of the ideas. Many aspects of both require a good measure of special pleading, or conflict directly with observation. They both have ‘headline appeal’, something away from the humdrum; and, because of this, attract a ‘faith following’ which is happy to ignore a bit of science if it gets in the way of a good story.

Many thanks are due to Rob Butler and Tony Pedley for producing the Virtual Seismic Atlas, not just as a showcase for modern seismic data processing, but as a resource available to those, like myself, who do not otherwise have access to such samples, in reproducible form.

References

R. Butler, and A. Pedley, 2009. Digitally remastered. Geoscientist, 19/6, 18-22
R.J.Davies and J. Cartwright, 2002. A fossilised Opal A to Opal CT transformation on the northeast Atlantic margin; support for a significantly elevated Palaeogeothermal gradient during the Neogene? Basin Research 14 467-486.
D. Meadows and R.J.Davies, 2007. Morphological development of basin-scale silica diagenetic fronts revealed with 2D seismic reflection data: offshore Sakhalin, Russian Far East. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 164, 1193-1206.
Ted Nield 2009. Zombie Alert! Geoscientist 19/3, p2
Sarah Day, 2009. Fresh hit for “dino killing asteroid crater”. Geoscientist 19/6 p12

From Richard Davies (Durham University), Joe Cartwright (Cardiff University), Rob Butler (Aberdeen University) Antony Pedley (Fugro Multi Client Services (UK) Limited)

(Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

Sir, Peter Owen’s letter (‘Reflections on a Zombie’ – published online 5 August 2009 – see above) uses seismic imagery hosted online in the Virtual Seismic Atlas (VSA) to question an earlier interpretation of an opal-A to opal-CT reflection in the Faeroe-Shetland Basin¹.

Firstly we are delighted that the Virtual Seismic Atlas (VSA) is now being used as a mechanism for debate surrounding the interpretation of seismic reflection data. However in this case we can reassure Owen that there is no ‘special pleading’, ‘germination of ideas’ or ‘faith following’ as he puts it.

The reasons for interpreting this and similar reflections in the Møre, Vøring and North Sakhalin Basins as opal-A to opal-CT boundaries are

they have been drilled by several commercial boreholes (e.g. released wells 214/4-1 and 6704/12-1)^1,2
they unequivocally cross-cut stratigraphy^1,3
the reflections represent positive reflection coefficients1,3
the reflections show regular wavelength pattern development, consistent with a diagenetic origin^1,4,5,6
they show evidence for differential compaction consistent with compaction caused by diagenesis^3,5
the features are associated with a host of other phenomena that are consistent with diagenesis and fluid flow^7-10.

Rather than taking each point in turn that Owen makes we would like to draw his and the reader’s attention to the wealth of published literature on these fascinating phenomena.

Owen does make a good point regarding figure 3 in [1]. In this paper there is a drafting error in the reporting of the depth to the opal-A to opal-CT boundary. In well 214/4-1 the boundary was encountered at a depth of 550m below the seabed and at a two-way-travel time of 2861ms where the two-way-travel time to the seabed is 2200ms. Taking these figures the velocity of succession above horizon E is calculated as 1664 ms^-1, which is well above the velocity of seawater. We thank him for drawing our attention to this error.

References

Davies, R.J. & Cartwright, J.A. 2002. A fossilised Opal A to C/T transformation on the northeast Atlantic margin. Basin Research v. 14, p. 467-486.
Hansen, J.P.V., Cartwright, J.A., Huuse, M. & Clausen, O.R. 2005 3D seismic expression of fluid migration and mud remobilization on the Gjallar Ridge, offshore mid-Norway. Basin Research v. 17, p. 123-139.
Meadows, D. & Davies, R.J. 2007. Morphological development of basin-scale silica diagenetic fronts revealed with two-dimensional seismic reflection data: offshore Sakhalin, Russian Far East. Journal of the Geological Society, London, v. 164, p. 1193-1206.
Davies, R.J., Cartwright, J.A. & Rana, J. 1999. Giant hummocks in deep-water marine sediments: Evidence for large-scale differential compaction and density inversion during early burial. Geology v. 27, p. 907-910.
Davies R. J. 2005. Differential compaction in sedimentary basins due to silica diagenesis: A case study. Geological Society of America Bulletin Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. v. 117, p. 1146-1155.
Davies R. J. and Cartwright, J. A., 2007, Kilometer-scale chemical reaction front patterns and deformation in sedimentary rocks Earth and Planetary Science Letters. v. 262, p. 125-137.
Davies R. J., Huuse, M., Hirst, P., Cartwright, J. 2006, Clastic intrusions primed by silica diagenesis. Geology, v. 34, p. 917-920.
Davies R. J. and Clark I. 2006, Continental slope failures primed and triggered by silica diagenesis: A case study based upon 3D seismic data analysis. Basin Research v. 18, p. 339-350
Davies, R.J., Goulty, N.R. & Meadows, D. 2008. Fluid flow due to advance of basin-scale silica reaction fronts. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America v. 120, p. 195-206.
Davies, RJ, Ireland, MT & Cartwright, JA 2009. Differential compaction due to the irregular topology of a diagenetic reaction boundary: a new mechanism for the formation of polygonal faults. Basin Research v. 21 p. 354-359.

Not just motherhood and apple pie

From William Hume (Rec'd 10 June; Pub'd 17 June)

Sir, Reading with interest your Editorial (where you finger the key to the cabinet prior to reaching for the gun) I was struck by the balance needed for science to thrive in a progressive society. Firstly I should declare that I am not nor have I been a research scientist so I tend to look at the subject from the outside as a consumer of the information gleaned from such activities. In this respect I dare say I fall into the category as many Fellows of the Society.

You would seem to suggest that scientists are the best and only people to choose how and where to spend the public’s money in research matters, with society effectively handing the process a blank cheque to pursue ‘what science needs doing’. This, from a scientist’s point of view sounds great; but consider for a moment the purpose of science, which is first and foremost to answer questions relating to the natural world.

Science is a powerful process indeed but it does not have a monopoly on moral and ethical practice. Society derives its morals from (among others) the rich panoply of culture, religion, art and the wider aspects of philosophy. The history of science that has become dislocated from the wider concerns of society is not glorious and here we come again to the need for balance. Like it or not the world of politics represents the opinion of society in a liberal democracy and your examples of pre WW2 Germany represent a flaw in society, rather than a flaw in the method of funding science.

As I see it, the formulation of these question may come from one of two principal sources, firstly the slow march of progress along a line where one kernel of information raises a further question that deserves additional study. In this case the principle has already been established and the questions form a progression towards a known general goal.

The second source of questions derive from a more adventurous concept ‘what if’ starting point. This includes issues that are novel and ‘off the radar’ – fascinating and worthwhile but possibly less connected with an immediate advantage to society. With either of these starting points, if society is the paymaster the principles behind the questions should also come from society. I would argue that the same also applies even if society is not the direct paymaster.

The bottom line is the balance of action where society forms the broad field of scientific question; not merely with respect to funding alone but including the wider social context as well. Science should, however, answer the questions in freedom and in an atmosphere of clear light which clearly shows as far as possible the bias and viewpoint of the scientist. Communication is therefore a key issue; society (principally the media and the politicians) need to understand science, its strengths and limitations, and science needs to know and understand where it comes from and that scientific purpose comes from society rather than the funding package.

If scientists do not like concepts such as ‘multidisciplinary’ as conceived by the politicians, then we should address this with society and the body politic rather than seeking a divorce. More strength to your elbow in the field of communication then.

Marketing overkill?

From John Milsom (Rec'd 4 June; Pub'd 17 June)

Sir, What on Earth is the GeolSoc up to? Has it suddenly come into a fortune and can think of no way to spend it?

Recently, in a one week period, I received, by post, two separate, plastic wrapped flyers for Society publications, one for the Rock Forming Minerals series, the other for books on Tectonics and Structural Geology.

Now, I am a Fellow of the Society. I regularly receive Geotimes and JGS. Each comes with a sheaf of leaflets advertising all manner of other publications. I do not wish to receive the same material all over again, in smaller packages. I do not wish to have to worry about disposing of the accompanying plastic waste. And I do not wish to see any part of my subscription spent on pointless adverising and postage. Will you please stop?

Neal Marriott, Director of Publishing, replies:

Dear Dr Milsom, Your letter is timely as we are currently looking closely at how we can minimise the quantity (and cost) of print promotional material going to Fellows, external subscribers and Publishing House customers. Our intention is to replace many mailings with targeted emails distributed according to stated interests and previous book purchases or conference attendance. The result, we hope, will be more valuable information getting into the right hands, and less unwanted mailing dropping through letter boxes - though anyone wishing to be excluded from such communication can, of course, opt out.

Charnia dating error

From Roger Mason (Rec’d 23 May, Pub’d 27 May 2009)

I agree with the message of Joe McCall's article in the May issue of Geoscientist that Martin Brasier and Jonathan Antcliffe's recent studies and publications about the holotype of Charnia and other Ediacaran fossils represent a major advance in the study of these important organisms. Their observation and documentation is of the highest quality and I was therefore disappointed by a mistake in Joe McCall's article. I discovered Charnia masoni in 1957 not 1958, which was the date of publication of Trevor Ford's paper in the Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society. I have recounted the story many times and it appears in a paper by Ford (2007) and an abstract by me (Mason, 2007). Thanks to my father's diary, I am able to be confident about dates. Ford also recounts how news of the discovery spread to Australia in 1957 ahead of Martin Glaessner's Nature paper, a monumental example of 'shoehorning' thirty years before Gould's (1989) description of the phenomenon.

Ford, T.D. 1958. Precambrian fossils from Charnwood Forest. Proceedings Yorkshire Geological Society, Vol. 31, 211-217.
Ford, T.D. 2007. Charnia masoni - 50th birthday party. Mercian Geologist, Vol. 16, p. 280-284.
Glaessner, M.F. 1959. Precambrian Coelenterata from Australia, Africa and England. Nature, Vol. 183, 1472-1473.
Gould, S.J. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, p.263-277. New York: Norton & Co.
Mason, Roger. 2007. The discovery of Charnia masoni. Transactions of the Leicester Literary & Philosophical Society, Vo. 101, p.48 (abstract).

Electoral dysfunction

From Rick Brassington (Rec'd & Pub'd 12 May 2009)

Sir, I find it is disappointing that only 802 Fellows were sufficiently interested in the Society’s affairs to vote in the election for Council and surprisingly 17 of those did not feel able to vote for the next President (Election results; Geoscientist 19.5). These represent a turnout of 8.3% for the Council election and 8.1% for the Presidential election (based on the 2008 Fellowship of 9,676) which are abysmal compared with that at the last (2005) general election of 61.36% and still very poor when compared with local council elections that have turnouts usually between 25 and 30%. If we assume that all Candidates will vote as will their Proposers and Supporters then the numbers of uncommitted Fellows voting are reduced to 759 (7.8%) and 736 (7.6%) respectively.

Many people having read thus far, will probably groan, say “What does it matter?” – or word to that effect - and turn to read something else. Clearly, it does matter as Council runs the Society on behalf of the Fellows. It also begs the question “Why should so few people be interested?” Perhaps it is the result of confusion over the complex system of election with some people failing to realize that although the actual election takes place at the AGM in reality matters are decided by the electronic and postal ballot.

Knowing that few people vote I took a straw poll at a recent Regional Group meeting and received the same reply from the eight or nine people I asked. “I would vote but I don’t know any of the candidates”.

This will always be the case although more can be done to overcome the information gap. The election special edition of Geoscientist is the opportunity for candidates to say why they are standing and what they want to do if elected. Each candidate is left to prepare their statement and decide on its content so they are as varied as the number of candidate standing and do not always contain enough information on which Fellows can decide whether to vote. My suggestion is that in addition to the candidates’ statements standard information is provided in a summary format that is both published in Geoscientist and made available online and as a separate leaflet with the voting papers. The information that I think should be included are: Name (obviously); Age; Date of election to Fellowship; whether a Chartered Geologist and date of election; ditto for Chartered Scientist; Current employment; Employment category (e.g. academia, industry, BGS, environmental regulator, etc); previous employment experience in terms of employment categories; and the region where they live.

A further encouragement for Fellows to vote would be for Regional Group Chairmen to remind those attending meetings to vote and encourage their colleagues to vote starting from the time that the list of Candidates appears to the closing date for the election. Who knows, we could get turnouts well into double figures and also inspire a greater interest in the way the Society is run.

Reply from Robert Freer (Rec'd 9 June; Pub'd 17 June)

Sir, A low turn out for the Council election is indeed disappointing but does not necessarily mean something is wrong with the Society. Perhaps the opposite.

I did not know any of the candidates,nor as second best, their supporters, but I thought their election statements were all very similar and therefore whoever was elected it would be business as usual. No one was preaching red revolution so there was no one to strongly oppose or strongly support.

If the system is changed in any way I would not agree with a standardised form. For instance age is irrelevant for the Council; Pitt was Prime Minster at 24, Gladstone at 84. And it is unlikely that any candidate will not give full weight to their relevant experience and express it in their own words. The more varied their experience the better.

The Society appears to be functioning well. The turnout at elections may be disappointing but I don't see it as a sign of a dysfunctional Society.

Science literacy in Government

From Alf Whittaker (Rec’d & Pub’d 7 April 2009)

Sir, I have a lot of sympathy with Peter Allen's views in the latest Geoscientist (April 19.4, p3). Was it not Winston Churchill who reputedly said something to the effect that “scientists should be kept on tap and not on top”?

When I was Head of Deep Geology at BGS some 20 or 30 years back I had much contact with French and German colleagues. Our main contacts were to do with national deep drilling programmes in each national area and other very trendy geoscientific projects of the time. I always remember that the European friends and their programmes were led by national politicians who were all well qualified geoscientists of one sort or another and had easy access to all their own national politicians invariably of very high standing in the political pecking order.

SPOSH or tosh

From Dr John Heathcote FGS, CGeol. (Rec’d & Pub’d 8 Mar 2009)

Sir, I do not entirely agree with the views expressed by Darren Wilcox. There are at least two issues.

Having spent much time thinking this matter through, I believe that DEFRA is right not to issue numerical values to define ‘Significant Possibility Of Significant Harm’ (SPOSH). There are real uncertainties in the science, both of estimating toxicity at very slight levels, and in modelling pathways affected by the idiosyncratic behaviour of humans interacting with geology.

SPOSH contains the word ‘significant’ twice. It is possible, using conservative assumptions, to derive a soil concentration where there is the possibility of significant harm to a person – the harm usually considered is death or heritable defect, which meets most people’s definition of significant. Whether this possibility of harm is itself significant depends on many factors. How certain is the toxicology, especially of a mixture of substances affecting different metabolic pathways? How predictable is the behaviour of the receptor population? These are in part subjective. DEFRA/EA may be able to help us in establishing POSH, but it requires consideration of individual circumstances to determine if this is SPOSH. What is a tolerable risk in one circumstance may not be tolerable in another.

Some of the problem arises from what is a ‘significant possibility’. The input data to the CLEA models include daily intake quantities for the potential toxins, which have been established as having a possibility of causing harm. The size of the possibility cannot be established clearly. However, the intake value for benzo[a]pyrene that underlies the calculation is 20 ng/kg body weight/day, and this is estimated in TOX2 (DEFRA 2002) to be associated with a risk of 1e-5/lifetime, approximately 1e-7/yr, maybe. This is a very small risk. To put it in context, the equivalent risk from natural radiation is estimated by the Health Protection Agency to be 1.3e-4/yr, 3 orders of magnitude greater. The risk of death from other natural causes is even higher. Risks of 1e-7/yr are far too low to observe directly through epidemiological studies. HPA, being itself risk-averse, cautions against trying to scale the risk at higher concentrations (HPA, 2008).

It is interesting to consider the Radioactively Contaminated Land Regulations, made under the same legislation as the Contaminated Land Regulations. Here SPOSH is defined in the regulations as inter alia a dose of 3 mSv/yr, which produces a risk of ~2e-4/yr, an increase of the same order of magnitude as the natural risk.

Having established that small amounts of arsenic or benzo[a] pyrene, or quite large amounts of radioactivity, are leading to a risk of harm that is greater than zero, it is for society to consider whether this risk of harm is significant and we wish to avert it, or unavoidable and we just live with it. If it is natural background we probably live with it.

At times it will involve some difficult decisions, and I would not wish to be the practitioner associated with that one in a million child fatality, but that is how the world is. It isn’t an entirely safe world. Contaminated land practitioners, working both for developers and regulators, are needed to work together to agree when the possibility of harm is ‘significant’, i.e. something must be done, either remediation, or an alternative lower risk development.

DEFRA, 2002. Contaminants in soil: collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans. Benzo[a]pyrene in soil. DEFRA and EA R&D report TOX2. ISBN 1 857 05741 4.
HPA, 2008. Benzo[a]pyrene – use of excess lifetime cancer risk estimates. HPA-CLCN-1.

To CPD or not to CPD?

From Dr Louis Macchi (Rec’d 4.3; Pub’d 5.3.2009)

Sir, Irrespective of whatever discussion may ensue in respect of the “place of continuing professional development for chartered members” (Geoscientist 19.1 p11) there are those of us who will refuse to become forcibly embroiled in unproductive reporting just to provide the Society with the opportunity to 'validate' our worthiness (or otherwise) for continued membership. If CPD becomes mandatory, we shall resign.

It is not anomalous that Chartered Geologist status lacks a requirement for CPD recording, because our election is (or was) not conditional on there being such a requirement. Unfortunately, Prof. Manning’s article seems to pre-suppose that the rules will inevitably be changed. The Society should be aware, therefore, that out there you will find CGeols who run their own consulting companies, working extended hours on absolutely confidential material, who are also engaged in running (rather than attending) professional training courses, as well as conducting their own research. We have no “employer appraisal scheme” to fall back on, and we are unable to disclose information. Therefore I see no logic in engaging in mindless self-justification, squandering time that might otherwise be more profitably spent on productive work.

Prof. Manning’s contention that CPD is vital to clients (because it ensures that consultants keep up to date) is, I believe, simply wrong. I applied to become a Chartered Geologist because Fellows had been led to believe that, in the near future, Chartered status would inevitably become a precondition of professional engagement. Yet in the 17 years or so that I have held it, not one of my clients has shown the slightest interest.

It therefore irritates me that Prof. Manning’s piece implies – almost dismissively - that it is only senior and retired CGeols who consider CPD irrelevant to their interests. To echo Prof. Manning’s own words, “nothing could be further from the truth”.

* Reservoir Associates International, Laburnum House, Shocklach, Cheshire SY14 7BT, UK

From Alan W Miller (Rec’d 5 Mar; Pub’d 11 Mar 2009)

Sir, I read Prof. Manning’s article To CPD or not to CPD? expecting to be persuaded by a factually balanced argument as to pro and cons; but feel somewhat dismayed by the fact that there are those who believe that compulsory CPD is not only desirable but inevitable – not to mention their condescending tone.

Mother often does know best; but who, in this case, would be conceited enough to presume to be mother? The P in CPD stands for Personal. It is and should remain a matter of choice how to manage and develop our careers, and not something to be imposed by others. I was amazed at Prof. Manning’s dismissive comments about senior and retired members. I assume the author is not retired, so how does he know?

If someone fervently believes colonic irrigation is good for you, is that a reason to force everyone to take it? I think not. No, compulsory CPD can only appeal to those with OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) and those who make it their mission in life to impose their views on others for their own good, whether they like it or not.

Well, no more patronising do-gooders acting on my behalf, please. This is my career and I will decide when (or whether) I want my colon irrigated. Don't call me ... I'll call you!

From Mark Davis (Rec’d 6 Mar; Pub’d 11 Mar 2009)

Sir, I can but only wholeheartedly support the concept of CPD – CPD is important at any stage of a career and during any period – economically stable or not! To me, the core of any professional geologist’s work consists of deliverables related to the project in hand. But one of the few ways that deliverables can be measured (outside of actually carrying out the work) is by attending related courses and workshops and using these to demonstrate your understanding of the professional aspects of geology.

From Peter Dolan (Rec’d & Pub’d 21 May 2009)

Sir, I have some further comments to those of Alan Miller’s on Prof. Manning’s article.

‘To CPD or not to CPD?’ is not the correct question. Continuous Personal Development is, surely, a sine qua non for any professional. To say otherwise is to deny the value of learning and experience. More contentious is whether CPD should be mandatory for Chartered Geologists. There are, I suggest very strong reasons why the answer should be ‘No’.

Chartering of professionals is inherently designed to invest enhanced status on an individual. I believe that the more successful the Geological Society (GS) becomes in persuading its Fellowship to acquire chartered status, the more it dilutes the relative value of the title. Therefore I think individual Fellows should be encouraged, but not coerced, into seeking this title.

When a Fellow applies for chartered status, equal weight is given to character and personal references as to demonstrable technical capability. Since a leopard cannot change its spots, the character references are of paramount importance in defining the manner in which a professional person will behave throughout his or her career. Having established technical competence and an appetite for enquiry at the time chartered status is awarded, what value is there in monitoring and regulating a professional person whose character traits have already been judged as proper and appropriate – other than to impose a costly and inefficient burden of bureaucracy?

I contend that properly vetted, successful, voluntary applicants for chartered status will develop their skills and value to the public at large of their own accord. Prescribed regulation of a self-assessment type (think of self-declared incomes, sub-prime mortgages and toxic assets for analogous risks) can lead only to a false sense of security. The award of chartered status is essentially a contract between the GS (purporting to ‘underwrite’ a Fellow’s professionalism) and the Fellow who, in essence, commits to not bring the name of the institution into bad repute. There is, in the eyes of third parties, for whom the whole exercise is constructed, a legal obligation.

Should the GS impose mandatory CPD on a chartered geologist, then it adds one more layer of ‘promise’ to third parties, with all that that entails. It would be much better to leave CPD as a matter for the Fellow to undertake voluntarily.

In my own field of petroleum geology, I have come across very little appetite for ‘chartering’ over the last 10 or 20 years. Why? Perhaps it is because engineers, the main proponents of chartering, are almost always engaged in matters of exactitude and are involved in modifying the physical world, or man-made structures, by which life and limb can be put directly at risk. In contrast, petroleum geoscientists are principally involved in understanding and describing the subsurface and its mechanisms. This is not to deny that they can make decisions that impact on society, but rather to stress their involvement with ideas and concepts that frequently require imagination, challenging rules and received wisdom. Such a mindset is hardly likely to take kindly to, or see the value in, box-ticking, routine attendance at seminars or conferences, and other ‘politically correct’ activities to earn points.

Of course, some of the geological disciplines have passed the point of no return in having to have CPD to survive in the market place (hydrogeologists, engineering geologists), but not all have, or want to.

So: yes to chartered status for all Fellows who would like to apply, and CPD for all those who wish or need to engage in it. But please don’t make CPD mandatory for chartered geologists and don’t attempt some specious form of regulation that will probably discredit chartered status, discourage new Fellows or, worse, alienate existing ones.

Enlightenment

From Don Hallett, (Rec’d 12 Feb; Pub’d 20 Feb 2009)

Sir, Visitors to the Geological Society’s apartments will be familiar with the society’s logo, bearing the motto Quicquid sub terra est – “Whatever is under the Earth”. An editorial in volume 128 of the Journal of the Geological Society in 1972 states correctly that the motto was adopted by Council in 1811, and traces it to the preface of Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum, published in 1620. (See also Whatever is Under the Earth, the Society's Bicentenary hisrtory, p. 37).

The editorial provides a free translation of one of the key sentences from the preface, which epitomises Bacon’s philosophy – that the key to unlocking nature’s secrets is observation and experiment. A more literal translation, with rather appealing imagery, would be:

But if there be any man who, not content to rest in and use the knowledge which has already been discovered, aspires to penetrate further; to overcome, not an adversary in argument, but nature in action; to seek, not pretty and probable conjectures, but certain and demonstrable knowledge — I invite all such to join themselves, as true sons of knowledge, with me, that passing by the outer courts of nature, which numbers have trodden, we may find a way at length into her inner chambers.

The Society motto, however, has (as any schoolboy would once have known) a more ancient pedigree in Horace’s first Epistle (I, 6, 24), which illustrates the contrast between classical philosophy and that of the Enlightenment. Whereas Bacon invokes observation as the agent of progress, Horace invokes time:

Quicquid sub terra est, in apricum proferet aetas. (Time will bring to light whatever is under the Earth.)

The aphorism is still incomplete, and has a corollary which moves even further into classical philosophy:

Quicquid sub terra est, in apricum proferet aetas, defodiet condetque nitentia. (Time will bring to light whatever is under the earth; it will cover up and conceal what is now shining in splendour.)

It is good to reflect that the founding fathers chose to associate the Society with the scientific enlightenment rather than with classical tradition, despite the original source of their motto. Of course Bacon died in the cause of science, catching a chill in Highgate while conducting an experiment to test whether a chicken could be preserved by stuffing it with snow. A fitting end for a bold pioneer of he experimental method - and a neat example of the dangers inherent in all "useful knowledge".

NERC Funding of BGS

from Professor Alan Thorpe* (Rec’d 15 Jan; Pub’d 19 Jan 2009)

Sir, In their article Quo vadis BGS? and supporting information published in the January 2009 issue, Mick Lee and Martin Culshaw express concerns about changes the Natural Environment Research Council has made in the way it funds its centres, such as the BGS. It was precisely to address such concerns that led NERC to formulate the change to the funding methodology. By introducing a simplification to the way it supports them, NERC has demonstrated the critical role centres have in providing the national capability to carry out environmental science. This includes all the strategic survey functions, including public good, for which BGS is world-renowned.

Funding for national capability has been put onto a longer-term, more stable footing to further support sustainability, and accounts for about 86% of the BGS funds that come from NERC. This is a very positive step towards supporting long term the strategic role of the BGS. NERC has also created a National Capability Advisory Group (NCAG), made up of representatives from the NERC centres and external experts, to advise our science board on the continuing health and development of the national capability portfolio. The job of NCAG is to avoid uncoordinated funding decisions that could, potentially, lead to unintended consequences on the national capability NERC supports.

This does not mean that BGS and other centres can assume absolute certainty about the level of future funding for their national capability. The NERC allocation from Government is subject to the outcome of spending reviews and we have, from time to time, to cope with negative outcomes as well as the much more palatable positive ones. But now NERC will know much better than before what the implications of making small changes to funding will be for its centres, particularly with advice from NCAG.

The article refers to the fact that the remaining 14% of NERC funding for BGS will now be available to be bid for more frequently than the previous five year blocks. This allows the larger shocks that were possible every five years to be ameliorated as the consequences of a particular research programme or grant bid failing will be far less serious. BGS is very successful at bidding for a sequence of contracts (half of its funds come from other sources) so the new methodology is not at all a radical shift. NERC has made the change to encourage closer alignment of research to the NERC strategy, and to stimulate more collaboration.

Finally, there is the question of whether the new draft BGS Strategy signals a change to turn BGS into a research institute rather than a survey. I can see no evidence of that and NERC has no desire to see BGS move from its role as the UK's national geological survey, with an appropriate level of (applied) geoscience research also carried out at the highest level.

* Chief Executive, NERC

A bigger Earth?

From Antony Wyatt (Rec'd & Pub'd 28.10.08)

Sir, I hope that I am not alone in enjoying the varied responses to Stephen Foster’s piece on an expanding Earth in September’s Geoscientist. The letters section of the website certainly gives food for thought!

I am currently based in the Niger Delta, with little access to the primary literature, so I apologise in advance if my comments are old hat (and will readily admit that I could simply be rehashing something that I read some years ago; I have no way to check). I know that one reading of the history of geology is that arguments based on physics are always suspect, but I think that we need to base our speculations on generally accepted principles. If there seems to be a fundamental mismatch between evidence and physics (as with 19th Century arguments about the age of the Earth) we can at least speculate there may be future discoveries to be made (such as radioactivity).

Conservation of angular momentum means that a larger Earth would rotate more slowly. The difficulty lies in calculating how much change is required, as it would depend upon how the expansion was achieved. Was it a uniform increase, an increase mostly in the denser, inner regions, an increase mostly in the outer, less dense regions, or some other non-uniform variation? Given the suggestion that the Earth was only 80% of its current size a few hundred million years ago, I find it difficult to believe that this change in rotation rate would be trivial.

It has been known for many years that the number of days in a year has been going down, but my recollection is that the data from fossils fitted in quite well with the calculated changes required by the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the moon. Perhaps it is time to revisit the data and interpretations as it could help to show if there is unexplained slowing that might be due to expansion. If the data fit with the gravitational story then either we need to put aside an expanding Earth, or start worrying that we are missing some fundamental principle of physics.

From Hugh Rance (Rec'd & Pub'd 21.10.2008)

Sir, Reading Stephen Foster’s A bigger Earth ¹ one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Evidences of Earth continental crust expansion are not hard to find. Two examples: Local tensional rifting and associated basaltic volcanism is seen in the tectonically active triple junction that centres on the Afar triangle. Regional horst and graben widening are seen in the Basin and Range physiographic province of the Western United States. Here, beginning 17 million years ago, the province has doubled its east-west width. Early Neogene volcanism covered most of the province with lava flows. In these, basaltic lava flows of Late Miocene age succeed Early Miocene rhyolitic lava flows and pyroclastics.²

However, one should note that through all of geological time, ocean surface and continental shield surface elevations have been within a few hundred meters of each other as platform sediments attest. To be plausible, Earth expansion requires that volcanic exhalation of water keeps the ocean basins neatly filled at all times. But often forgotten is that because of isostasy, continental crust thickness and ocean depth are related.

By density contrasts, the granitic continental crust floats by displacement of a column of ocean water, basaltic crust, and underlying peridotitic mantle. The sea surface intersects the continental coastal plain and shelf slope. The sea floor depth averages about 4.5km. If you double the ocean water volume and keep the ocean area constant, the continents would have stabilised to twice their present shield thickness in the time it takes for mountains to erode to sea level. If you halve the ocean water volume and keep the ocean area constant, then the continents would have stabilised to half their present shield thickness in the time it takes for mountains to erode to sea level. Change the ocean area from a small percentage of Earth’s present area to 71% of Earth’s area in the course of 300 million years, and one will arrive at overriding problems.

Volcanism, for billions of years before 300 million years ago, has evidently not been less than since. Cracks in the sea floor associated with volcanism are places where exhaled via black or white smokers is mostly recirculated sea water.

Foster asks us to imagine that during the last 220 million years, the oceanic areas greatly expanded to include the size of the Pacific Ocean. During that time however, continental platforms have not been dramatically higher or lower than present sea level. This would require volcanism to suddenly begin a volume-as-needed exhalation of water to keep the opening ocean basin filled just so.

References

Earth expansion founders on its own shoal.
Foster, S. 2008 A bigger Earth. Geoscientist, 18 (9): 3.
Dickinson, W. R. 2002 The Basin and Range Province as a Composite Extensional Domain. International Geology Review, 44 (1): 1-38.

From Malcolm McClure (Rec'd & Pub'd 20 October 2008)

Sir, The September issue of Geoscientist 'Testing Classical Enigmas' was on the mat when I returned to London after a prolonged sojourn in Ireland. I was delighted to see Stephen Foster's Soapbox piece on 'A bigger Earth' that you placed in a prominent position. This has long been an almost unmentionable subject in Anglophone geological circles, despite its support by well accredited academics in Europe and in Australia.

I have been following the fortunes of the Expansion theory since the beginning of Plate Tectonics, that alternative theory whose simplicity submerged all competitors. In the practical world of hydrocarbon exploration, we quickly found that Plate Tectonics provided answers that were immediately and successfully applicable on a world-wide basis, so it was difficult to respond to the objections of those who criticised an expanding Earth by saying, "What difference does it make?" The practical differences may be minimal but, whilst the philosophical differences are immense, philosophy doesn't play well in an industrial environment.

About 25 years ago I had the opportunity to make a detailed fit of the West African coast with the east coast of South America. I had access to detailed seismic that defined most of the edges of their continental shelves with a variable precision averaging about 20 kilometres. This established that there was an extremely convincing, tight fit of individual segments of shelf, off-set by comparable distances where transform faults intervened, all the way from the Cape through the Gulf of Guinea to Liberia and along corresponding coasts of Brazil and Argentina.

I also had well data that gave representative information about the chronostratigraphy for that entire coast. It soon became clear that the ocean between 'north of Falklands' and the Cape was already about 1500 kilometres wide BEFORE the coast from Niger Delta to Liberia began to experience right-lateral transform movement. The fairly detailed geological maps of the continents could not explain this discrepancy by complementary transcurrent movements.

I came to the conclusion that this evidence could best be explained if the diameter of the globe was about 80% of its present dimensions in the Valanginian, at which time the South Atlantic Ocean began to open progressively towards the north. Thus the ocean opened by a process akin to flattening an orange peel or opening a zip fastener, just as McCarthy found for the Pacific in the paper referred to by Foster.

I have not published as the supporting data was, and possibly still is, commercially sensitive.

An indexer writes...

From Jane Angus (Rec'd & Pub'd 15 October 2008)

Sir, While fully agreeing with your theory (Geoscientist 18.10 p2) of reverse results, many indexers like me are not particularly surprised by the examples you give from James Evans’s paper on the reduction of citations since the introduction of on-line searching.

I have indexed journals according to instructions by keywords, or in the style recommended by the Society of Indexers or even as permutated narratives covering all the indexable topics. In correct full indexing, references to ‘alternatively’, ‘the contrary view’, ‘in comparison to the above’, ‘but Smith and Jones say’ etc. are fully indexed, but no online word-search will access these potential lines of enquiry. Moreover there is evidence that reading from a screen takes a third longer than from the page, however dusty, so absorbing and rechecking the text is also less efficient.

It is the objective of the indexer to provide the quickest and complete paths to information and it has yet to be proved that online searching can always meet those criteria. It is not only a question of geosciences and older literature which should be considered, but whether lack of professional indexing is a false economy.

Gross Spitkoppe, a 700m high monzogranite inselberg, located over 100 miles to the south of the Etendeka lava field.

Unintended Etendeka error

From Lewis McCaffrey (Rec'd & Pub'd 15 October 2008)

Sir, Great magazine. I really enjoy reading it. But the description of the Front cover of Geoscientist Vol 18 No 10 as "the rocky desert of the Etendeka" is quite wrong. The image is of Gross Spitkoppe, a 700m high monzogranite inselberg, located over 100 miles to the south of the Etendeka lava field. I had the honour to climb it in December 1995 with the geologists Hendrik Schloemann and Gavin Andrews. The 17-hour climb and descent left quite an impression on me.

Global climate change, sunspots and solar irradiance (continued)

From Colin Summerhayes* (Rec'd 19, Pub'd 26 November)

Sir, Geoff Glasby, and he is not alone, is sadly mistaken by assuming that there should be a "clear relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature" (i.e. a linear correlation). Atmospheric temperature is a function of many things including the various greenhouse gases, solar radiation, volcanic emissions, and aerosols - which are particulates such as desert dust, carbon black and industrial compounds. These various inputs and their separate and combined effects have been rigorously analysed by many in the modern climate research community (mostly meteorologists and allied specialists).

Their meticulous research has subsequently been synthesised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its report of Working Group I (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm). What they find (reported in Chapter 9 of that report) is that climate models are only able to reproduce observed global mean temperature changes over the 20th century when they include anthropogenic forcings, and that they fail to do so when they exclude anthropogenic forcings; this the IPCC takes as evidence for the influence of humans on climate change (see their Figure 9.5). These anthropogenic forcings include not only the well-known greenhouse gases, but also human-produced aerosols, like sulphates. The aerosols tend to have a cooling effect that counters the warming induced by the greenhouse gases. The resulting temperature curve is thus not linear, but a product of competing effects between aerosols and gases. It is known that aerosol output grew rapidly with rapid industrialisation in the years immediately after World War II, and that it took some time before countries began to cut aerosol emissions through Clean Air Acts. Aerosols are still being emitted by industry, but the rate of growth of greenhouse gases has now outgrown the rate of aerosol supply (or its effect), so that from about 1970 on we have seen the re-emergence of the underlying global warming signal that was hidden by aerosol output between 1950 and 1970. Cooling between around 1950 and 1970 may thus be attributed to the growth of largely sulphate aerosols. The graph that I provided with my previous letter should make it plain that the temperature rise that we have seen since 1970 has nothing to do with any change in solar energy, and most likely everything to do with rising greenhouse gas concentration.

The paper by Easterbrook, on which Dr Glasby places so much reliance, is to say the least obscure - as far as I know it has only been published as an abstract, not in a peer-reviewed journal. Easterbrook is a retired geology professor who has a long record of papers on Quaternary glaciation. He is not known as a specialist in modern climate studies, but is known to be skeptical of global warming. I would far rather see my old friend Geoff Glasby basing his questions about climate change on a thorough reading of the reports of the 2007 IPCC and the peer-reviewed papers on which they base their conclusions, than on such weak sources.

(*Ex-member Scientific Steering Committee of the Global Climate Observing System – GCOS)

Global temperature projection for the coming century by Easterbrook (his Fig. 21)

COmparison of correlation of global temp with solar irradiance and the lack of correlation with CO2. Easterbrook 2008

Global climate

From Geoff Glasby (Rec’d and Pub’d 10 October 2008)

Sir, I thank Colin Summerhayes and Jonathan Cowie for their interesting comments on my letter published in the August issue of Geoscientist. However, there appears to be some misunderstanding.

The present model for global warming in which global temperature is assumed to be controlled by the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere was proposed by James Hansen at a Hearing before the US Congress in 1988 (Hansen 2008). However, this was an inspired guess not based on a rigorous assessment of the data. For this hypothesis to be valid, there should be a clear relationship between atmospheric CO₂ concentration and global temperature. However, as shown by Easterbrook (2008), this is not the case. For example, between 1945 and 1977 when atmospheric CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly from about 1.2 to 4.9 Gt per annum, global temperatures cooled by about 0.2°C. This behaviour is incompatible with global warming caused by CO₂.

On the other hand, global temperatures show a clear 30 year cycle consistent with the temperatures being controlled by solar irradiance. This is well illustrated in the plot of global temperature vs time from 1900 to 2100 prepared by Easterbrook (Fig. 21). On this basis, global temperatures are predicted to cool between 2006 and 2036, warm between 2036 and 2066 and then cool again between 2066 and 2096.

These two hypotheses are incompatible. However, the curves showing the relationship between solar irradiance and temperature with time are much more convincing than those showing the relationship between atmospheric CO₂ and temperature (Fig. 28). Since solar irradiation of the Earth is estimated to be about 10,000 times greater than the energy from fossil fuel usage, this is to be expected. We must therefore reappraise the situation in the light of present evidence and consider the possibility that global warming is not the problem that it is presently thought to be. However, this should not detract from our resolution to confront environmental problems of all types on a global basis.

References

Easterbrook, D. 2008. Geological evidence of the cause of global warming and cooling-are we heading for global catastrophe?
James Hansen 2008. Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near.

Figures (above)

Fig 21 Global temperature projection for the coming century based on warming/cooling cycles of the past several centuries. (Easterbrook 2008)
Fig. 28 Showing the correlation of global temperature with solar irradiance and its lack of correlation with CO₂ (Easterbrook 2008).

Figure presented by Edouard Bard during the Royal Society's Leverhulme Climate Symposium (Earth's Climate: Past, Present and Future), on March 13 this year, and is based on Figure 3 in Bard, E., and Delaygue, G., EPSL 2008 (265) 302-307.

Global climate change, sunspots and solar irradiance

Reply from Colin Summerhayes (Rec'd & Pub'd 7 October 2008)

Sir, In response to the letter by Geoff Glasby in your October issue (see below), it is only fair to point out that the influence of changes in solar output on recent global climate has received adequate recognition in recent years from climate scientists, who are well aware that some at least of the rise in global temperature since 1900, and the accompanying dip between 1950 and the mid 1970s reflect solar output.

This understanding is clear not only from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but also from reports by independent national agencies such as the UK Met Office and its Hadley Centre for Climate Change. Taking all natural forcings together, including those from the sun, the Hadley Centre cannot forecast the rise in global temperature that we see since the mid 1970s. Indeed, during that period the global temperature forecast from natural forcings shows a slight decrease. Only when man-made forcings are taken into account can that recent increase be simulated by the Hadley Centre model (for more information see - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/climate_greenhouse.pdf).

During the increase of global temperature since the mid 1970s, solar output has fluctuated regularly about a steady (that is non-increasing) mean, as shown in the figure below. This figure was presented by Edouard Bard during the Royal Society's Leverhulme Climate Symposium (Earth's Climate: Past, Present and Future), on March 13 this year, and is based on Figure 3 in Bard, E., and Delaygue, G., EPSL 2008 (265) 302-307.

The red lines (climbing to the right) are global temperature (the heavy zig-zag line is global temperature); the green, blue and black lines at the bottom are different indices of solar activity (NRF = net radiative forcing by the sun). As Bard put it "over the past 50 years irradiance, heliomagnetic and cosmic ray variabilities do not show any long term trend that could have contributed to the observed global warming". The paper to which Dr Glasby's letter refers might have been more convincing if its solar record extended beyond about 1990. Sadly it does not. We are left with CO₂ as the primary cause of continued global warming.

From Jonathan Cowie* (Rec'd & Pub'd 7 October 2008)

Sir, As delighted as I am (and I am) that Geoscientist readers alert us to geo and biosphere science exotica, perhaps we do need a bit of a filter. The idea that changes in the Sun's output currently have a greater effect on current (mid-20th century to present) global warming than changes in greenhouse gases(Geoscientist, 18 (10), 16) is an old one. Being an old one (and at the time worthy of investigation) it has been examined and found wanting: for example Foukal, 2006. The IPCC have also looked at this in their last three Assessment Reports (1995, 2001 and 2007) and while solar variation does have an effect it is comparatively small compared to the greenhouse variables currently changing.

Furthermore, there has been more recent work (for example Lockwood & Frohlich, 2007) that yet again confirms that the Solar variation effect, though there, is (currently) trivial (compared to current greenhouse forcing changes). Even the hypothesis that it is cosmic rays causing clouds (hence affecting the climate) and the cosmic ray intensity at times being affected by changes in Solar wind (one of the arguments used in the specious and nefarious documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle) has been found wanting: for example Sloan & Wolfendale, 2008.

Yes, it is true that if you take just a decade and a half of the mid-20th Century to present global temperature record and compare this with some of the estimates for Solar variation for this short time period, and then adjust the scale of your graph's 'y' axis appropriately, then you get a somewhat similar-shaped graph. If the independent reviews of this solar variation hypothesis are to be believed then this apparent similarity is just coincidence. Coincidence abounds and can mislead. Indeed I bet if you carefully selected an appropriate decade of an appropriate one of the FTSE companies' share values, adjusted the 'y' axis scale appropriately that it could be made to appear similar to at least one of the corresponding decades in the global temperature record in the latter half of the twentieth century. Nonetheless this would not mean that there was a causal link between the two.

The thing with the scientific method is that sometimes a seemingly interesting alleyway turns out on investigation to be a dead end. There is nothing wrong with this but occasionally there are over zealous souls who find it difficult to give up a cherished belief. I find it hard to knock such dedicated folk. However in this case the rest of us need not worry. We now have Solar monitoring by satellite well in hand and we have (by a variety of methods) good annual assessments of the global temperature. Consequently every five years or so we can continue to publish evermore significant papers (based on longer time series) as to exactly how great (or little) variations in the Sun's output affect the climate compared to other factors such as changes in greenhouse gases or a major volcanic eruption.

References:

Foukal, P., Fröhlich, C., Spruit, H., & Wigley T. M. L., (2006) Variations in Solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate. Nature, 443, 161-165.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1995) Climate Change 1995: the Science of Climate Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Climate Change 2001: the Scientific Basis - Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis - Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lockwood, M., & Frohlich, C., (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. R. Soc. (A) doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880
Sloan, T., & Wolfendale, A. W., (2008) Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 24001 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001

*Concatenation Science Communication, Leicester www.science-com.concatenation.org

From Geoff Glasby (Rec'd and Pub'd 18 August 2008)

Based on the IPCC reports, it is generally accepted that global warming in the Anthropocene was caused by the release of CO₂ to the atmosphere by man. However, papers presented at the 33rd International Geological Congress in Oslo by Willie Soon, Don Easterbrook, Fred Goldberg and Nils-Axel Mörner strongly suggest that other factors are involved.

In particular, Don Easterbrook showed the global temperature curves displayed a cool reversal from ~1950 to ~1977 inferring that global temperatures were not driven by atmospheric CO₂ at that time. Solar irradiance curves, on the other hand, almost exactly matched the global temperature curve. In addition, satellite data suggest that the earth has received increased solar radiation over the past 25 years, coinciding with the present 25-year warm cycle. Easterbrook went on to predict a cooler climate from ~2006 to ~2035, a warmer period from ~2035 to ~2065, followed by another cooler period from ~2065 to about the end of the century. In my opinion, Easterbrook’s article is a tour de force which clearly demonstrates the dominant role of solar irradiance, not atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, in controlling global temperatures (http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/index.htm; see global warming paper).

Nils-Axel Mörner also concluded that we are presently at a peak in the current sun spot cycle and there is more risk of cooling of the earth’s atmosphere that there is of any global warming, let alone catastrophic warming.

It has been said that combating global warming by radical restructuring the global energy system will be the technological challenge of the century. In order to achieve this goal, it is imperative that we have a proper understanding of the factors controlling global warming.

Unsupported allegations?

From Ian Clarke* (Rec'd & Publ'd 2 October 2008)

Sir, I was very saddened to read (Geoscientist Online 17 September 2008), of the death of young Alex Wright in a trial pit in the beginning of last month. I wish to extend my deepest condolences to Alex’s family and friends at this time of great sorrow.

I am sure that there will now be an inquiry into the cause of Alex's death and the circumstances that surrounded it. I hope profoundly that it will not conclude that this tragic occurrence could have been avoided if proper health and safety procedures had been observed. Too many of our profession have died as a result of entering into unsupported or inadequately supported excavations, and I hope and trust that this was not the case here (as has been suggested elsewhere by those who have examined published photographs of the scene).

No-one in our profession should ever, under any circumstances, enter inadequately supported or unsupported excavations.

It is easy to point the finger firmly at employers but all should be reminded that Health and Safety is everyone’s responsibility. We are responsible for ourselves; but if we see others entering into unsafe practices we also have a duty of care to prevent them from doing so.

I hope that I am joined in unanimity when I say that those of us responsible for engineers, geologists, graduates and technicians should make it abundantly clear to them that entering improperly supported excavations is absolutely unacceptable. Furthermore, no-one should ever feel pressured into entering a supported excavation if they are unhappy doing so.

*Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Robson Liddle Ltd

Honorary fellowship

From Walter Ziegler (Rec'd & Pub'd 16 September 2008)

Sir, I just spoke to Rudy Trümpy and we both agreed that the Geoscientist is becoming better and better: in short, topical and interesting. We both remarked on the fine paper on Paleolithic-Modern man. The topic is worthy of further discussion; I suggest you give it a full "Dawkins" treatment! Ultimate accolade of the Darwinian evolution! Man, go after it! Sock it to the ID/Cretinist brigade!

Now, another sorry topic that has stuck in my craw for a long time. During my tenure as Foreign Secretary of the Society during the reign of the late Professor Perce Allan - in about 1978 or so - I was asked to look at honorary fellowship. As an active oil geologist in industry I had no preconceived ideas about the subject. Nor about drafting statutes. No interest, period - better things to do!

Nevertheless I worried about the problem. Looking through the precedents I found out that Honorary Fellowship was bestowed during the war years to those members overseas who had no way to pay their dues, as an emergency measure. This practice had been perpetuated after the war to those abroad who had not got the means to pay dues due to currency restrictions etc!

I was inclined to suppress honorary fwellowship and proposed to do so – but there the matter rested. However, after I had withdrawn from Council, Honorary Fellowship was perpetuated, and is now being revived with vigour. Are not Honrary Fellows merely a kind of pseudo-medallist? I still think that it is an unnecessary "honour", with the medal structures. Best dropped!

Expanding Earth?

From Hugh Owen (Rec'd & Pub'd 15 September 2008)

Sir, I read with interest Stephen Foster’s Soapbox contribution on the expanding Earth question. However, the “fast” expansion argument championed by Carey (e g. 1988), Vogel (e.g. 1983) and Maxlow (2005) is flawed, easily demolished by the ocean-floor spreading data and obscures the very strong evidence for a slower rate of expansion provable during the last 200 million years of our planet’s history. The quoted authors assume that no Panthalassa Ocean existed prior to the early Jurassic and that inter alia all of the Earth’s oceanic areas have developed since that time. This is demonstrably not the case. Twenty five years ago, I tested the spherical geometry of the available ocean-floor spreading patterns and the development of the Earth’s oceans from the commencement of break-up of Pangaea, some 200 million years ago to the present day (Owen 1983).

This test was made assuming, on the one hand a constant modern dimensions Earth model and on the other, one which was in strict accordance with the continental marginal geological connection data and the area and geometry of the dated spreading patterns in the passive margined oceans. Assuming that the Earth has always been near spherical, the break-up of Pangaea and the subsequent spreading history in these passive-margined oceans (Arctic, North Atlantic, South Atlantic and Indian Oceans) indicated an Earth of 80% of modern dimensions some 200 million years ago, expanding to its current size. The constant modern dimensions reconstructions do not coincide with either the break-up data nor the subsequent spreading patterns, but produce anomalous spherical geometric gores. These gores, if they had existed in reality, would represent crustal area of which their is no evidence of their former existence in the Jurassic or early Cretaceous, nor of their required subsequent subduction before the commencement of the spreading patterns actually mapped.

The spherical geometry of the “slow” expansion model indicates the presence of a substantial Eo-Pacific oceanic area in the early Mesozoic. It is true, that we only have a remnant of one half of the original Mesozoic spreading pattern in the Pacific Ocean and this commences within the Jurassic. However, substantial spreading continued in the Pacific Ocean area throughout the late Cretaceous and Cenozoic, the period in which the passive-margined oceans were also increasing their area. The patterns in the Pacific are truncated at the active oceanic margins in zones where tectonic under-thrusting is determinable seismically. It is clear, that the output of oceanic crust in the passive margined oceans has to be compensated by marginal subduction, especially when one considers the output from the Pacific’s own spreading zones. The current subduction model in the East Pacific assumes that the ocean floor is being thrust underneath the continental margins in response to its continued generation from its offset mid-oceanic ridges. It can be argued also, that part of this subduction is due to the relatively westward displacement of the Americas in response to the continued spreading in the North and South Atlantic. The history of the development of the Eo-Pacific before the Jurassic is intriguing, but in the absence of spreading data is untestable.

Where I totally agree with Stephen Foster, is that the satellite data, is consistent with Earth expansion. The rate determined over the last 20 years is insufficient to indicate the rate of expansion over the Earth’s history. However, if the expansion rate is exponential, the rate in the last 200 million years would suggest that the Eo-Pacific commenced to form by continental displacement in the late Silurian – early Devonian and there is some faunal and lithostratigraphical evidence to support this hunch.

Reaferences

Carey, S. Warren, 1988: Theories of the Earth and Universe. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, xviii+413 pp.
Maxlow, J. 2005: Terra non Firma Earth. Terra Publications.
Owen, H. G., 1983: Atlas of Continental Displacement, 200 million years to the Present. Cambridge Earth Science Series, Cambridge University Press, i-x, 1-159, 76 maps..
Vogel, Kl. 1983: Global models and Earth expansion. In Carey, S.W. (Ed.) The Expanding Earth; a Symposium. University of Tasmania pp 17-27.

Too late for pudding?

From Martin Lack (Rec'd and Pub'd 20 August 2008)

Sir, I write in response to Brian Lovell's essay (The Proof in the Puddingstone) in this month's Geoscientist on how humankind can best mitigate the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change. With the greatest respect, I do not think that carbon dioxide is the biggest problem we face. Surely this is the continuing thaw of the permafrost in Russia and Canada that will release unimaginable quantities of methane (a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide)? Or are programmes like the recent BBC Drama "Burn Up" and/or "The Power of the Planet" just guilty of scare mongering? I think not.

We may want to pat ourselves on the back for the efforts made in recent years to capture and utilise methane gas from landfill sites, but China's programme of coal-fired power station building threatens to cancel out any efforts made by the developed nations to reduce the impact of their emissions. Moreover, even the challenge of China (and other rapidly developing economies) is as nothing compared to the thawing permafrost. Are we not all in danger of "re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic"? Forget carbon sequestration - what about re-freezing methane?
Has anyone any suggestions? Please feel free to tell me I am being unduly pessimistic (but please include some facts to back up your assertion!).

Hasta la victoria siempre!

From David James CGeol (Rec’d & Pub’d 17 August 2008)

Sir, Your reporter’s account of the Society’s commemoration of the IG (Geoscientist, 18.8) contains several fascinating and disturbing statements.

First, ex-President Richard Fortey: “CGeol….the aspirational grade for all our Fellows” (my italics). Really? Have they all been asked? Do the membership numbers support this conclusion? Second: “many in the Society remain hungry for reform”. Does the use of ‘many’ imply a high proportion of the Fellowship? If so, how high? Have they been asked?

Third: chief protagonist Rick Brassington who wants to legislate for “greater representation on Council of non-academic geologiststs” (positive discrimination*) and wishes the Society to “fully undertake its role as the regulator of the geological profession by requiring that all Fellows who work as professionals become Chartered Geologists” (a “closed shop”). I find both aspirations unpalatable, unworkable and possibly in breach of ‘human rights legislation’ (a rare example of its usefulness!). Moreover such changes to Bye Laws are not, as seemingly assumed by Rick Brassington, to be achieved by the whim of Presidential dictat. They happen to require a vote deemed representative of the entire Fellowship.

When I voted for a woman as our current President, I did so because I thought her well qualified for the job, not because of some hidden agenda on positive discrimination for females. In like fashion, the route for greater numbers of non-academics on Council is for more (and dare I say it, better) such candidates to stand for election under existing Bye Laws - not hide behind positive discrimination under new. These candidates should state clearly in their election manifestos whether or not they support the closed shop policy.

I am strongly in favour of the dissemination of professional standards via the Society; however having once aspired to be a scientist (before joining the oil industry!) I would like this done by reasoned argument and appeal to the evidence – not by the edict of an ex-IG Politburo, elected solely because they had managed to change the rules.

* Editor’s note: As it is an Editor’s job sometimes to be pedantic about terms, it may only be fair to point out that fostering the representation of one group of an electorate, as suggested by Brassington, need not necessarily involve “positive discrimination”. It could equally involve legitimate “affirmative action”. This is a nice distinction, but an important one. Whereas the former is little better than jerrymandering for politically correct ends, the latter is the taking of steps (such as targeted promotion and advertising) to ensure the proper participation of certain unfairly under-represented, and thus disenfranchised, groups.

Reply

From Rick Brassington (Rec'd & Pub'd 8 October 2008)

Sir, I was heartened to hear that David James (Letters Geoscientist 18.10) is strongly in favour of the Society’s role in disseminating professional standards - a view that I hope is shared by all other Chartered Geologists. However, some of his points do not fully reflect what was actually said at the AGM about either the Chartered Geologist qualification or the membership of Council.

The 1991 Reunification process was predicated on IG giving up once and forever its opportunity to be appointed by the Privy Council as the regulator of the geological profession, thereby allowing the Society to perform this role and create the Chartered Geologist qualification. My point is that the Society, by not requiring those of its members who are professional geologists to hold the qualification in order to practice devalues it to an almost meaningless level and is out of kilter with modern thinking over professional qualifications. If such an outcome had been made clear to the IG membership I am sure that the reunification would not have happened.

James’s little joke about IG being run by a "politburo" made me smile. Far from being an autocratic organisation, IG was run by a Council that was far more democratic than the Society’s own Council. The election procedure ensured that the full spread of geological employment was represented and involved a straightforward postal ballot - unlike the confused process the Society has to follow. My suggestion was the Society should emulate this democratic approach.

There is nothing in the Royal Charter that prevents the Society from modifying the regulations that govern either the requirements for Fellowship or the constitution of Council. Of course the process should be achieved by reasoned argument so that the facts can be considered, thereby avoiding confusion, ignorance and prejudice. I cannot believe that I am the only person to want these matters to be debated by the Fellowship and call on everyone to provide their views.

Just do stuff that works

From "a disillusioned Fellow"* (Rec’d & Pub’d 16 August 2008)

Sir, I was much amused by your August Editorial (“Not ours to see”). One of the reasons I quit university teaching was the requirement to let any applicant have a place and not to let any candidate fail.

I left academia and eventually found myself in charge of the global exploration research programme of a major British resources company. Following my presentation at an annual research strategy meeting, it was clear that my budget was too large for the group's plan. There would have to be excisions. One of the main board directors said to me: “Why don't you simply cut the research which is not going to work?”

* Name and address supplied.

Research - breaking the gang culture

From Don Braben* (rec'd & Pub'd 18 August 2008)

Current arrangements for supporting research fail at the margins where great discoveries are made. The ideas on which they are based would not survive peer review. When I was invited to join BP in 1980, they set me this very task - that is to try to identify tomorrow's great ideas in advance. It took some five years to work out how to do it. The essential first step was the realisation that we would fail unless we abandoned virtually every method of research selection currently in use, and derived our own from scratch. Peer review was the first to go. We now have a very successful modus operandi.

Unfortunately, we now have no funds. BP closed down our initiative - called Venture Research - in 1990 so that they could concentrate exclusively on their core businesses. We have set up a Venture Research Group to draw attention to this serious problem, and to raise a new fund.

I have worked closely with the US National Science Board over the past three years or so as an informal member of their Task Force on Transformative Research. Its report was sent to the NSF about a year ago. My recent book, "Pioneering Research: A Risk Worth Taking" published by Wiley in 2004 seems to have played a prominent role in the setting of that task force. Every member of the Board had a copy purchased for them.

What a pity that our initiative has attracted so little attention from UK officialdom.

* Donald W Braben is a visiting professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at University College London. His latest book, "Scientific Freedom: The Elixir of Civilization", was published earlier this year by Wiley.

Bemused, bothered and bewildered

From John Ramsay (Rec'd 26, Pub'd 27 August 2008)

Sir, In your Editorial (Geoscientist 18.7, July 2008) you use a number of words and expressions that leave me feeling bewildered and irritated. Let me list them, with some suggested possible meanings or comments: The crust consists of "s***t" (unintelligible); “University petrography is really geopornography” (perhaps the petrographers of our community could enlighten me?); Margaret Thatcher is “coiffured” (what has her hairstyle to do with her actions?); likewise the reference to “milk-snatching”; readers who might not regain “consciousness” after your “confession” that you were deeply grateful to Mrs Thatcher (this is rather self-important - I doubt whether his readers will be interested enough in your life story to be shocked). You also state that you have a “talent for literary imitation”. I wonder who is or was your model?

If these remarks are meant as jokes then they fail because they seem to me to be incomprehensible and fatuous. If they are not jokes, then what on earth are you doing putting them in Geoscientist, which publishes articles that are useful, informative and above all clear in the language used?

Still all woman

From Bruce Denness (Rec'd & Pub'd 8 July 2008)

Sir, I understand where you’re coming from about The Blessed Margaret; I too have a sneaking admiration for the old girl. But, I say, bit strong that July editorial, don’t you think? OK, she demolished a few hitherto well-defended academic barriers but - let’s be fair - she was and, according to my best information still is, a woman.

Now, if she’d been a bloke, it would have been different. A real bona fide chap, such as a geologist for instance, would never have snatched milk from a budding scientist let alone accepted an FRS just for being PM. (Well OK, possibly. But he would have kept it quiet.) Then there’s that other bit about academics doing “precious little spinning”. Of course they don’t, they’re not trained for that - they leave it to politicians.

As I understand it, the main thrust of your argument is that Mrs T had scant regard for those who she considered to deliver no quantifiable benefit to society (which she didn’t recognise anyway – tricky that). There again, there seems little reason for scientists to swan off into the well-funded distance pursuing esoteric stuff when, with a little bit of thought, they could equally well be (or appear to be) beavering away at the loom. Why not? I did – and got away with it for 40 years!

However, en route, while slaving away at Mrs T’s cost-effective coalface – but without selling my soul - I also learned the tricks of the research trade. Now I can see how rewarding it is to be able to judge the weirdest of ideas (I still have them) in a practical context.

Surely the lady wasn’t right all along - was she?

Dancing with danger

From Geoff Glasby (Rec'd 24 June; Pub'd 25 June 2008)

Sir, As a result of overpopulation, overconsumption, global warming and environmental degradation, it now looks increasingly likely that there will be a major societal collapse within the forseeable future.

Between 1997 and 2007, world population increased from 5835 million to 6,600 million which is equivalent to an increase of 210,000 per day during this period. Between 1950 and 2000, world GDP increased by a factor of 10 in constant US$, which is a measure of consumption. Between 1800 and 2002, the atmospheric CO2 concentration increased from 288 to 373ppm and is expected to reach 460 ppm in 2030. This means that as much CO2 will be emitted to the atmosphere between 2002 and 2030 as during the whole of the industrial revolution from 1800 to 2002. In 1961, mankind used only about one half of the Earth’s biocapacity; but this increased to 1.2 times in 2002. This means that global demand for natural resources now exceeds the biological ability of the earth to renew these resources by more than 20%.

The increases in these four parameters clearly demonstrate the extent to which we are overexploiting the natural environment and resources on which we depend for our survival. Unless curbed, these increases are likely to have a major impact on the human population within the next 50 years.

Faults of the Pharaohs? Probably Not!

From Dr John Dixon (Rec'd & Pub'd 18 June 08)

Sir, While article on the geology of the West Bank of the Nile at Luxor (Geoscientist 18.6 p18) was very interesting and undoubtedly the necropolis of Thebes is of great importance to the understanding of some of the history of Ancient Egypt I am not entirely clear that it offers anything towards the understanding of the Ancient Egyptian as "geologist". On the basis that it is but one of the great necropolises of the ancient culture, it would appear that there were likely to be motives other than geology driving the Ancient Egyptians towards the choice of their site to spend eternity. Perhaps the fact that the necropolises of Abydos, Saqqara and Giza are all sited on the west bank of the Nile, and are all older and of probably more importance that the Valley of the Kings, may just be a clue to the way the Egyptian mind was working. The choice of a necropolis probably had more important things to consider than the geology, since the whole philosophy of the afterlife depended on the burial on the western bank. It served them well for over three thousand years.

The interaction of the geology, geomorphology and archaeology of the Giza plateau has been dealt with in some detail over recent years and perhaps it can be considered that the nummulitic limestones of that plateau were equally unsuitable as a place for royal burial since they are prone to both wind and water weathering. Nevertheless, this was a site of huge importance to the theology of the Egyptians from at least the time of the Old Kingdom and perhaps earlier. It would appear that no-one gave a thought to the faulting and jointing that even today can be seen to affect the monuments. It seems likely that there was a measure of pragmatism in so far that if there was damage caused and sufficient wealth available, then a repair was made.

Similarly, Saqqara was important for many years before Giza, possibly from the Pre-dynastic and Early Dynastic periods. The necropolis was used for thousands of years simply because it was on the west of the Nile and probably because the Egyptians appear to have been very fond of tradition. Saqqara was possibly the site of the first engineered stone structures and recent excavations have shown these to be older than the date of the great Step Pyramid of Djoser whose architect, Imhotep, sited the pyramid there, above the Nile, to be a fitting mausoleum to a great king and so it could be seen from the city on the east bank to indicate that the power of the king was still present.

Of course, that is not to say that the Ancient Egyptians did not have an interest in rocks; but I suspect that their view was rather more practical and considered the rock for its end use. In such cases the practicalities of working with rock, possibly lost to modern western workers, would have been important. Could a rock be used for a majestic statue or for a roof lintel or, in the New Kingdom, an obelisk? To suggest that the Ancient Egyptians were accomplished geologists because they did not build their large obelisks from say numulitic limestone is perhaps missing the point. It is almost certain that the Ancient Egyptians understood a great deal about the rock with which they worked but never really concerned themselves with geological mapping, slope stability, or tunnelling issues that would preoccupy the modern geoscientist during construction projects. It does appear, however, that they carried out a kind of ground investigation in the granites quarries of Aswan from where they took the greatest of all obelisks. Recent studies, and personal observation, of the rock mass condition of some of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings, and other necropolises, would tend to suggest that there were often pressures on the ancient workers to reach completion and the niceties of engineering geology were somewhat less well understood!

Essentially the Ancient Egyptians worked with what they had, driven by their cultural beliefs – in that sense, perhaps not too different from us!

The Anthropocene Epoch: today’s context for governance and public policy

Members of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London* (Rec'd & Pub'd 3 June 2008). reproduced with permission from Science in Parliament

Sir, Change has been ever-present in human history, but this has accelerated since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. As generation has succeeded generation, each has lived in an environment marked by novel technological, societal and cultural phenomena; these changes have affected also the external environment, for example via the felling of forests and straightening of rivers. It is becoming clear now that the extent of change has so intensified to make our present interval comparable to major global perturbations of the geological past. Living in the Anthropocene will present novel challenges to government policy, both national and international.

The term Anthropocene was coined, informally a few years ago, to denote the time interval - the last two centuries – in which humans began to supplant natural forces as the main drivers of environmental processes at the Earth’s surface. Since then, the term has been increasingly used by earth and environmental scientists, and analysis suggests that a new geological epoch, worthy of formalisation, may indeed have commenced. Moreover, there has been a marked acceleration to human-caused changes in land, sea, air and ice over the past few decades, and this acceleration continues today.

Both environmental modeling and Earth history analysis suggest that the changes will be greater than any encountered since human civilisation began, and will develop, in part unpredictably, over many millennia. Their manifestation, as regards changes in global temperature and precipitation patterns, changing biodiversity and rising sea level, will profoundly impact settlement and agriculture, particularly in developing countries marked by poverty and rapidly expanding populations.

We note that these global changes will form an effectively permanent backcloth to virtually all areas of government policy and action, all over the world. Their scale demands a commensurate response. How the changes now underway are managed will determine, perhaps more than anything else, the course of human history.

* Members of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

Dr. Jan Zalasiewicz (Chair: University of Leicester), Dr. Colin Waters (Secretary; British Geological Survey), Dr. F. John Gregory (Publications Secretary; Natural History Museum), Dr. Tiffany L. Barry (Open University) Dr. Paul R. Bown (University College London), Professor Patrick Brenchley (University of Liverpool), Dr. Angela L. Coe (Open University), Dr. Andrew Gale (University of Portsmouth and The Natural History Museum), Professor Philip Gibbard (University of Cambridge), Dr. Mark Hounslow (University of Lancaster), Dr. Andrew Kerr (University of Cardiff), Dr. Robert Knox (British Geological Survey), Dr. John Marshall (University of Southampton), Dr. Michael Oates (British Gas), Professor Paul Pearson (University of Cardiff), Dr. John Powell (British Geological Survey), Dr. Alan Smith (University of Cambridge), Dr. Philip Stone (British Geological Survey), Professor Peter Rawson (University College London, Dr. Mark Williams (University of Leicester).

References

STEFFEN, W., CRUTZEN, P.J. & MCNEILL, J.R. 2008. The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? Ambio, 36, 614-621.
ZALASIEWICZ, J., WILLIAMS, M , SMITH, A., BARRY, T.L., BOWN, P.R., RAWSON, P., BRENCHLEY, P., CANTRILL, D., COE, A.E., COPE, J.C.W., GALE, A., GIBBARD, P.L., GREGORY, F.J., HOUNSLOW, M., KNOX, R., POWELL, P., WATERS, C., MARSHALL, J., OATES & STONE, P. 2008. Are we now living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today, 18 (2), 4-8.

The IG Plaque

From Colin Bristow (Rec'd & Pub'd 20 May 2008)

Sir, Rick Brassington’s article ‘It’s your history too’ in the May Issue of Geoscientist, concerning the contribution made to the Society by the former Institution of Geologist’s activities is certainly long overdue although, strictly speaking, not all the innovations which Rick claims for the Institution were really initiated by it! Many of those involved at the time are now passed away or are well into retirement, so may I set out a few details for younger Fellows.

The Institution of Geologists (IG) was preceded by a consultative body called ‘The Association for the Promotion of an Institution of Professional Geologists’ (APIPG). This was formed in 1974, with the Official Launch in March 1975. It was disbanded upon the inauguration of the Institution in 1978. APIPG had a reasonably large membership of around one thousand and an elected Committee which was composed of a lively and innovative group of people drawn from all branches of geology. The Society owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the late Professor John Knill who, as Secretary of APIPG, did a great deal of the hard slog involved in setting it up.

The Regional Groups were an integral part of APIPG right from the start, the first Regional Group meeting was held in Plymouth in January 1975; subsequently John Knill, John Shanklin and Colin Dixon toured the UK to obtain a feeling for the likely support for Regional Groups and most of the present pattern of Regional Groups was established by early 1977 (British Geologist, June, 1977, p15). Much of the strength of APIPG, and later IG, was in the regions, with only a small central administrative office located in a garret in Burlington House. This nicely complemented the Society which was strong in London, but lacked any regional structure.

The British Geologist (later renamed Geoscientist), first appeared in March 1975 and the Founding Editor was Chris Wilson, supported by Annette Cutler and Jane French. Chris edited it up the inauguration of IG in 1978, by which time it had evolved into a thoroughly professional Institution magazine.

Validation was originally dealt with by the Membership, Education and Training Sub-Committee under Peter Lancaster-Jones, but John Lloyd took over the Validation Committee in 1976 and by the time of the inaugural meeting of IG in 1978 the present pattern of Validation Procedure had been broadly established.

The initial moves towards some form of Europe-wide body for geologists were by means of a series of meetings in Paris between Gerard Clement, President of the Union Français des Géologues and the Chairman of APIPG in 1975 and 1976, followed by contacts between other committee members and other European geological organisations. Later, after IG had been established, John Shanklin and Richard Fox played a major role in establishing the European Federation of Geologists and obtaining the Eur. Geol. professional qualification.

A Draft Code of Professional Conduct was published by APIPG in June 1976, although it has since been substantially revised several times. An Appeals Committee was also established by APIPG.

However, the Geologist’s Directory was definitely an IG innovation, with the driving force behind the First Edition in 1980 no less a person than Rick himself.

It is no exaggeration to say that the developments initiated by APIPG in the period from 1974 to 1978 led to the most fundamental changes in our Society in living memory. Like Rick, I do not understand why this has been so underplayed in recent years. So, to paraphrase Rick’s statement “The modern Society owes so much to the IG years”, …..but it owes a lot more to the APIPG years! I trust the unveiling ceremony for the plaque will reflect this.

Read the IG history by Rick Brassington

Editor's Note: The plaque, due to be unveiled on President's Day (June 4) in the Lecture Theatre, makes full reference to the formative role of the APIPG.

Vandalism hits Cornwall

From Nick Badham (Rec'd & Pub'd 20 May 2008)

Sir, I have just returned from the south coast of Cornwall where I was showing a group of senior Canadian undergraduates the roofs of the tin granites. One of the key localities is the pegmatite-aplite line rock sheets at Tremearne Cliffs (Megilligar Rocks). Here, among other astonishing phenomena, there are wonderfully exposed pegmatitic tourmalines with hollow cores infilled with quartz. Imagine my embarrassment and disgust when I found that the site had been grossly disfigured: someone has been collecting bulk samples of these extraordinary tourmalines with sledge hammer and chisels. The principal and best supratidal outcrop has now been irrevocably destroyed.

There have been complaints before in these and other professional pages about irresponsible collecting so all I can say here is that we must police ourselves better and stop this ruination of classic outcrops by the selfish few.

Creationism on the Causeway

Editor writes: The promised Society statement on Young Earth Creationism and allied doctrines is now published here.

From Mikey Brass* (Rec'd & Pub'd 14.4.08)

Sir, We have been following the so-called Creation Causeway Committee and its public pronouncements and underhand methods on including a YEC perspective in the noticeboards. This campaign is, unfortunately, linked to the broader creationist movement which is on the rise in Northern Ireland and England.

We note the Society is considering issuing a statement on the issue and wish to express our support for the measure.

*Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL Chairman, British Centre for Science Education www.bcseweb.org.uk

From John Heathcote (Rec'd & Pub'd 8.5.08)

Sir, We should not get too hung up by the opinions of creationists, no matter how vociferously they are expressed. The literal interpretation of Genesis on which this belief is founded is at odds with both the text of the book itself and with a long tradition of mainstream biblical scholarship.

Internal evidence within Genesis indicates that it reached its present form some time after 600BC, nearly 4000 years after the creation event it has been interpreted as describing. In the beginning there was no being other than God, so who wrote down the story? Genesis chapters 1 and 2 contain two different creation stories. What is to be made of Genesis Chapter 6 vv. 1-4? This is without the difficulties of relating the great ages to which men lived and the short span for the whole of geology to happen to our modern experience. I find it difficult to live with the idea of a God who made the Solar System look ~4.5 billion years old although it is only 6000 years old, to test our faith. There is a difference between faith and credulity. St Paul invites us to look at the world around us to deduce the nature of God (Romans 1:19-20).

I have no problem being a geologist and a Christian. Adam Sedgwick was ordained priest before being elected Woodwardian Professor at Cambridge. Geology tells me about how the Earth and all in it were formed, Genesis tells me something about why, and also explains why mankind hates snakes and quite a few other observations about how the world is. As an explanatory story Genesis has real power, and would have been comprehensible to the Israelites of the 6th Century BC in a way that modern stories about the Big Bang would not. We do not know that our modern ideas are correct either, but the current geological story explains a large body of observation and makes useful predictions. I’m happy to use it as the basis for my work.

By all means students should be given the opportunity to compare the two or more views of the beginning critically, and to come to their own conclusions. But I do not see this justifying a minority view for which there is no evidence being promoted as fact.

Barrage baloney

From Rob Kirby (Rec'd & Pub'd 14.4.08)

The article from William Stanton (Geoscientist 18.4) on the Severn Barrage is almost totally misleading. Early barrage concepts (1849) were unrelated to electricity generation (not yet invented). The first concept involving energy was in 1911. Peak Oil is a concept which has only emerged very recently so, of course, it wasn’t considered at the last major study phase (1987-91).

Reference fertiliser production, plans are afoot, admittedly in an early stage, to manufacture these from green (renewable) hydrogen, produced for example from a tidal power barrage. It is unclear why the author is fixated with green electricity not being suited to farming when such energy consumption is minor compared to industry, transport, domestic utilisation, etc.

The author denigrates a Severn Barrage on grounds of its discontinuous output. Most renewable sources, other than geothermal, are small, highly dispersed, and unpredictable in output. In contrast, Severn Barrage power is large, (20T Wh/yr), highly focused, and predictable for as long into the future as we need to know. Twenty years ago, when we had a CEGB, and still with a privatised industry today, neither the intermittent output nor the suddenness of onset of generation are raised as issues. They only say “Gimme it”! There are now many ways to counter the intermittency. One is by recourse to the offset in tidal propagation around the UK coast via multiple stations; another via a European “Supergrid” integrated with hydropower from Norway, Switzerland, etc. (Question: Does this help our vital “security of indigenous supplies” issue?)

A third option is using our copious barrage electricity to electrolyse seawater and produce green hydrogen fuel. Evidently the fourth and presently favoured option involves battery technologies. The idea is for a rapid shift towards Tariff 7-type cheap night-time power to charge up batteries for motor vehicles etc. Via one or more of these options, intermittency can be overcome and fades as a deterministic issue.

Come on William Stanton, we have enough mischief-making from “evangelo-scientists” among the environmental fundamentalist lunatic fringe without “one of our own” having scales covering his eyes.

Coal - it's not all black!

From Paul Younger (Rec'd & Pub'd 27 March 08)

I greatly enjoyed the latest account of David Strahan's analysis of fossil fuel futures ('Coaled Comfort', Geoscientist March 2008, pp 18 - 21). It nicely complements his earlier article on oil and gas, which I have recommended to anyone who'll listen to me. However, I couldn't let the latest piece pass without commenting that the estimates of coal reserves which are discussed in the article relate only to conventional mining of coal (by opencast or deep mines) and ignore the huge reserves which will soon be exploited, at depths far in excess of those ever reached by conventional mines, by means of underground coal gasification using directionally-drilled boreholes from surface.

A series of excellent annual conferences organised in London by the vigorous young trade association, the Underground Coal Gasification Partnership (www.ucgp.com), of which the most recent was held only in Feb 2008, reveals the variety of projects now underway around the world. The recent upsurge in interest not only reflects rising oil and gas prices - it also reflects recent, significant developments in lower-cost directional drilling methods. At the time of writing there are three major regional investigations underway in the UK, all seriously assessing the potential for underground coal gasification - one in Scotland, one in Wales and the other (which I direct) in North East England. Just to take the latter region: despite having mined coal at industrial scale longer than any other region in the world, fully 75% of the coal resources in North East England remain in place. A significant proportion of these is likely to move to the 'reserves' register as underground gasification technology begins to be deployed.

But what, you no doubt ask, about greenhouse gas emissions? This is where it gets really exciting. As a hydrogeologist, I will confess my cynicism about the scope for squeezing carbon dioxide into the moderately permeable strata which comprise our deep saline aquifers. However, where underground coal gasification has been implemented, we can use our long-standing knowledge of the response of incumbent strata to longwall coal mining to predict substantial increases in permeability in and immediately above the voids created by gasification. These will still be overlain by low permeability strata forming good 'cap rocks' higher up in the sequence.

We are absolutely sure this works - getting this right was the pre-requisite for safely mining under the seabed for more than a century. As these engineered zones of high permeability will already be connected to surface power plants by the wells and pipelines used to produce synthesis gas during gasification, they seem to me ideal candidates for permanent sequestration of a large proportion of the carbon dioxide arising. If we use approaches like this, the UK still has hundreds of years worth of coal reserves, which can be used with minimal carbon dioxide emissions. What we effectively have here is a second chance (we squandered the first one, in the North Sea) to couple responsible use of fossil fuels to a concerted effort to develop the renewable energy technologies which are the only long-term hope for the future of society.

Let's not squander the opportunity this time. But let's not get too glum about the scope coal still offers to 'dig us out of a hole' of our own making.

* Director Sir Joseph Swan Institute for Energy Research, Devonshire Building Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK

Lithostratigraphy - a waste of time?

From Hugh Owen (ec'd 10, Pub'd 30 May 2008)

Sir, Drs Peter Gutteridge and Christopher Jackson seem to be looking for the easy life. Let us define everything on the computer screen; make life much easier! Biostratigraphy and lithostratigraphy go hand in hand. Oil and civil engineering companies still make dating enquiries based on micro- and macro-fossils in a lithostratigraphical context. No doubt, the Gault and the Oxford Clay in the Cliffe graben (Thames Estuary) would make one nice mudstone unit – forget about age differences and the tectonic regional history that they evince.

from Cedric Griffiths (Rec'd & Pub'd 14.4.08)

Sir, As estate-agents cry "Location – location – location", so should geoscientists cry ”prediction – prediction – prediction”. I suggest that if what we do does not contribute to a useful prediction then we are wasting our time.

Peter Gutteridge asked the question ”Who needs lithostratigraphy?”. Well let’s look at where lithostratigraphy might fit in a predictive scheme. For many years I have been using a 'suburban street' analogy for lithostratigraphy. If one walks down a suburban street1 each house has a different boundary against the footpath. Some houses have hedges, some walls, some fences. All are coloured differently and contain different materials/plants. It is possible to describe each fence, wall, or hedge in exquisite detail. It is possible to map the contacts between each unit, and even to develop a garden boundary classification scheme if sufficient PhD students are available and funded. However, what can we predict at the end of such endeavour ? I humbly suggest very little. Perhaps deriving the 'most frequent garden wall colour', or 'mean height', or 'variance in sound reflectance' may help describe a neighbourhood more usefully, but it tells us nothing about the likelihood of the characteristics of the next fence in any given street, and certainly nothing about the features of the next street.

In 19962 I discussed stratigraphic prediction and the need for ’stratimetry’. Some years prior to that in Norway I worked on a pattern recognition approach to automated formation identification from wireline logs. It rapidly became obvious that the major impediment to the development of such a tool was the fact that lithostratigraphy sensu stricto was honoured more in the breach than in the observance. The recorded wireline type and reference sections for a defined formation rarely looked even vaguely similar, and examples even in the North Sea atlas of formations were all over the place. It is common practice both in industry and academia to use lithostratigraphic formations as time proxies (temporal place markers) rather than in any reproducible sense of their physical properties. As we all know this is a particularly odious practice as it leads to such statements frequently expressed with surprise in reports and papers that "Formation MidEocene proved to be diachronous" – well I never.....

In my experience (over quite a few years now) there is a place for a true lithostratigraphy in prediction of lateral distribution of reservoir quality, engineering properties, or depositional environment. BUT, and it is a huge BUT, I suggest that lithostratigraphic formations should NEVER be used as time proxies, and should only VERY RARELY be identified on seismic (a coal formation is perhaps one permissible example). The practice of identifying 'top reservoir' from seismic should be heartily discouraged. It has probably led to more dry wells than any other practice.

If formations can be defined in such a way as to enable quantitative simulations to be made then it would be possible to use such definitions to test predictions of seismic response, palaeogeographic characteristics, poroperm etc. Until such time I fear that lithostratigraphy is literally leading us up the garden wall.

1. (suburbia – ”a collective attempt at individuality”)
2. ”A stratigraphy for the 21st Century”. First Break, Vol 14, 10, 383-389.

From Peter Eichhubl* (Rec'd & Pub'd 4 April 2008)

Sir, In response to Peter Gutteridge’s suggestion to drop the use of lithostratigraphy, I encourage him to take a break from his seismic interpretation work and to spend three weeks of mapping in the field. With map case, colored pencils, compass, boots, and backpack. It will make him appreciate the value of lithostratigraphy and of formations as mappable lithologic units, with the additional benefits of exercise and fresh air. At least some structural geologists still care about lithologic units and their map- or reservoir-scale distribution.

* The University of Texas at Austin

From Francis Mediavilla (Rec'd & Pub'd 19 March 2008)

In more than full agreement with Peter Gutteridge. Lithostratigraphy can only be justified when any dating is impossible. All the French geological maps are based on chronostrigraphic units,and are much more efficient to understand a basin than learning the local lithostrat units changing from one village to the next.

From John Powell (Rec'd & Pub'd 19 March 2008)

Sir, You may have thought that the epicentre of the recent earthquake in eastern England in was just north of Market Rasen, but I fear it may have been closer to St Peter’s Church, Northampton where William Smith was turning in his grave in response to Peter Gutteridge’s suggestion (Geoscientist v.18, 3, p.3) that lithostratigraphy should be consigned to Room 101!

It was Smith’s pioneering work that enabled the geometrical and spatial distribution of rock bodies at the Earth’s surface and in the third dimension to be defined by their lithological characteristics, including petrography, mineralogy, geochemistry and fossil content. As a practical surveyor and engineer, Smith recognised and developed the fundamentals of lithostratigraphy as a practical tool for describing the lithology and physical properties of strata that was to be so essential to geological exploration and engineering geology, worldwide, and the development of the geological map (2D and 3D) and geological models (3D and 4D).

Lithostratigraphy remains the fundamental tool for geological mapping, modelling and describing the properties of rock bodies that conform to the Laws of Superposition. How else would practising geologists convey to, say, civil engineers the spatial distribution of sedimentary or igneous units along a tunnel route, or perhaps to the insurance industry the susceptibility of geological units to swell-shrink? Certainly not through sequence stratigraphy; “watch out for the High Stand Systems Tract when digging your foundations" just does not work!

However, informed geoscientists know that all varieties of stratigraphy (sequence stratigraphy; biostratigraphy; chronostratigraphy; seismic stratigraphy; magnetostratigraphy; isotope stratigraphy etc.) have their place, dependant often on scale, and the availability of seismic data, fossils, geophysical wireline logs, magnetic properties, stable isotopes etc. For practical geologists these tools all relate back to the rock record that is most readily defined by a lithostratigraphical framework. It is the powerful combination of these branches of stratigraphy that advances our science.

To throw a fundamental tool – lithostratigraphy – to Room 101 would be madness. I like to think that even George Orwell, when writing Nineteen Eighty-Four, in his remote farmhouse on Jura would have recognised and appreciated that he was sitting on the Jura Quartzite Formation (Late Neoproterozoic in age) – perhaps that’s why he named his hero W. (Winston) Smith, an intellectual worker for the Ministry of Truth!

From Dr John H Callomon (Rec'd 14 March; Pub'd 17 March 2007)

Sir, Peter Gutteridge conflates three things and failure to distinguish them leaves him sorrowfully confused.

The first is lithostratigraphy – what you see, the description of layered rocks. It helps to distinguish clays from sandstones. The second is lithostratigraphical taxonomy – a classification of what you see, an interpretation in terms of ideas in your head. The third is lithostratigraphical nomenclature – words you use to argue with your friends and lesser folk, such as road-builders, quarrymen, hydrologists, oil-men offering to hire you to advise them on carbonate sedimentology. And if you abolish the first, then there is nothing in the second and third to talk about.

Our author claims to ‘to understand what is really going on in a basin’. He could probably tell you, if both of you are looking at the same 3D seismic; but what do you do over the phone? Or in the proposal to the Board for a contract of exploration or exploitation? ‘Lithostratigraphy has been superseded by sequence stratigraphy ... and there is really no excuse to carry on using such a wasteful and dangerous misleading technique [as lithostratigraphy]’. Gadzooks! Was there ever a cult more in need of sound basic lithostratigraphic descriptions as subjects for model-driven classifications, static or dynamic, than that of sequence stratigraphy? Yes, lithostratigraphic nomenclature can be confusing, even inane; but with so much that of sequence-stratigraphy: what does it even mean?

So, the short answer to the question ‘Who needs lithostratigraphy? is: I do.

From Dr Christopher Jackson* (Rec'd & Pub'd 11 March 2007)

Just emailing in support of Peter Gutteridge's comments about the future of lithostratigraphic nomenclature (Geoscientist 18.3 p.3). Personally, I hate it, and Peter nicely summarises the key problems (i.e. the 'snap' mentally of poor geologists). I have yet to think about the solution to this problem, but perhaps one way of mapping would be to use timelines (i.e. flooding surface, biostratigraphically-defined surfaces) rather than rock type; this would capture lateral facies changes, especially within sedimentary rocks. I think Peter will get stick from the igneous and metamorphic brigade, as often such timelines are harder to decipher in the field and mapping similar-looking rock units is easier.

*Statoil Hydro Lecturer in Basin Analysis Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial COlege London

Whatever is Under the Earth

From Bruce Wilcock* (Pub’d 10.3.2008)

"Whatever is Under the Earth" has been reviewed favourably but there are, I fear, some significant omissions and inaccuracies relating to the early 1960s. There were, I would maintain, more positive developments during those years than might be inferred from the book. Foundations were then laid that were crucial for the Society’s later development.

Several misstatements in the book concern the Officers and Council. (I would emphasise that what was achieved while I was working for the Society is to be credited to them; my role was a subordinate one.) They were no cloistered academics but brought a wide variety of experience to their work for the Society. (For example, S.E. Hollingworths’s 1962 Presidential address, Our Society and the geological sciences, ranged very widely.) Nor were the Officers in contact with staff only at Council meetings: the Secretaries and Treasurer were frequently in touch at other times. The implication that papers submitted for the Quarterly Journal were not thoroughly scrutinised is also misleading. This work was done, as would be expected, by the Publications Committee and the Secretaries rather than in Council, and it was done thoroughly. The assertion that QJ was allowed to fall into arrears because a Secretary (Brian Harland) was away, is very strange: routine editing was the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary. (The Journal was in fact on schedule from 1960 to mid-1966.) The work done by the Secretaries, in particular, is hardly mentioned. For example, Brian Harland is given scant credit for the work he did in initiating and editing The Phanerozoic Time- Scale volume, which was not only an important contribution to the geological literature but was particularly significant as the prototype for the series of special publications that followed and flourish today.

The statement that the library was at this time without professional expertise is also misleading. From 1961 the librarians recruited had relevant previous experience; and outside advice was readily available if required.

There are significant omissions from the book: the setting-up in 1962 of a Policy and Development Subcommittee to make recommendations on general policy and on possible development of the Society’s activities; the institution in 1963 of the preliminary postal ballot, which enabled Fellows throughout the world to vote for candidates for Council; and the fact that meeting in 1963 was given over to a discussion on Society matters.

An item given disproportionate prominence by Herries Davies concerns the doors installed between what is now the Fellows’ Room and the Upper Library. The then new Assistant Secretary did not, as related in the book, demand doors to his room: their absence did not trouble him and his concerns were very much elsewhere. Although relatively trivial, this item may indicate that some of the sources on which the author relied may not have been altogether reliable.

Professor Davies had, I realise, a difficult task. My object in offering theses comments is simply to shed further light on a period of which I have personal knowledge.

* (Assistant Secretary and Editor 1961-6)

Should we worry about "Intelligent Design"? - replies

From Roger Mason (Rec'd 29.02; Pub'd 03.03.08)

Sir, The January edition of Geoscientist has just reached me here (many thanks) with the editorial about intelligent design. Last month my wife and I toured Wuhan City Museum with an enthusiastic and intelligent young American teacher of English at CUG who cheerfully told me that "Darwin is now discredited," and that the Earth is 15,000 years old.

The evolution/ID debate has a different spin here because Darwin is a hero of the Communist pantheon whose portrait hangs in every school. Missionary activity is forbidden by law, but Christian organisations supply foreign teachers and some of them take private bible study classes under the label "conversation lessons". The Communist Party always finds out, but may turn a blind eye if the would-be missionary does a good job teaching English. Some years ago at another university, a particularly blatant American evangelist boasted to me that he got away with it because his university's Communist Party Secretary (a senior salaried post) enjoyed meeting him regularly to argue about life and international politics.

Only salaried Party officials declare their membership in public. It is an honour to be elected a Party member and in accordance with the teachings of Karl Marx it includes a declaration of non-belief in religion. Students in the Young Communist League are hoping for election to full Party membership, so reporting a teacher's missionary work would help. Thus, a likeable student who displays an apparently sincere interest in private conversation lessons may not be what he or she seems. Our university is not popular with Christians, one of whom translated our name as "Dirt University", but we do have our fair share of Christian teachers.

In this context, I support a declaration about Intelligent Design by the Geological Society on similar lines to that of the Royal Society's. I write as a regular Unitarian worshipper when I am in London. I agree that the argument is about rhetoric not science; but a lot of the world is less tolerant than the United Kingdom.

From Stephen W Foster (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.01.08)

Sir, Thank you for your excellent editorial and letters (see below) in the January edition of Geoscientist, in which a balanced view on the differences between science and religion was expressed and clear respect demonstrated to both magisteria (unlike some of our "scientific" colleagues, who's ignorance and prejudice is a disgrace and merely reflects and plays into the hands of fundamentalist religious bigots). I agree that the Geological Society should issue a statement along the lines of that of the Royal Society if only to continue to ensure that all teachers in all schools, but in particular those schools and academies which are sadly controlled by religious fundamentalist groups, are reminded of their moral duty: to recognise these non-overlapping magisteria and respect them equally.

In the USA religious bigotry has long and deep roots - we do not want to import it into our schools or society. It was correctly implied in your column and letters that science and religion are not incompatible - unless that is individuals (on both sides of the divide) choose to make it so. I wish to continue to teach (and live) in an open, tolerant community were all views can be expressed, evaluated and selected according to belief and argument - not in one where I am forced to believe by ignorant and prejudiced individuals of any persuasion. However to do this I must be prepared to stand up and be counted: our Society needs to do the same.

"Darwin" is two thirds "Rain"

From David Garnett*

Sir, My congratulations to Michael Price on his feature article ‘The wrong sort of rain’ (Geoscientist Vol 18, No 2, February 2008, pages 22-26). I particularly liked the concept of soil behaving like senior management in that it ‘top slices’ to make sure it gets its share before anything is passed on to the lower strata. Now that’s an idea that wasn’t in any of my soil science textbooks.

I would, however, like to point out a small error in his map of global average precipitation (Fig 2). With three days to go to the end of February here in Darwin, NT, Australia we are currently averaging almost exactly an inch of rain a day for the month, yet Figure 2 purports to show that we only get 10-20 inches per annum. I can assure Michael that we get more than that. A lot more. A nice shade of green would have been more appropriate.

*CEO, Tropical Savannas Management,Cooperative Research Centre, Charles Darwin University, Darwin

Wager

From Marian Holness* (Rec'd 10.01.08; Pub'd 14.01.08

Sir, While the tragedy of Lawrence Wager’s early death did not deter Alex Deer from continuing with their plans for the 1966 Skaergaard expedition, Geoff Glasby’s illuminating article contains only an element of truth in the comment that “the cores they drilled during this expedition were never fully examined”.

Wager and Deer wanted to access the Hidden Zone of the Skaergaard Intrusion which they believed may have extended > 1 km below the surface, but the drill bit jammed in breccia after only 350m. After many fruitless attempts to retrieve the lower rods, the effort was abandoned. The basal ten metres of the extracted core is a mess of crushed fragments of gabbro mixed with basaltic dykes. The remaining time was used to drill another hole higher in the intrusion, and ~100m of the upper parts of the Layered Series were extracted.

The cores came back to Cambridge, but no efforts were made to test Wager’s ideas about the effect of closed-system fractionation. Instead they became the subject of numerous mineralogical investigations, under the guidance of Alex Deer and Stuart Agrell. Yin Yin Nwe studied pyroxenes, Paul Henderson worked on trace element composition, and Sven Maaløe looked at plagioclase (suggesting that the base of the first core was actually at or close to the base of the Hidden Zone, refuting Wager’s belief in a vast Hidden Zone).

While the second core has been replicated numerous times by commercial drilling operations, the first core remains the only available material from the Hidden Zone. When I started work on the Skaergaard I was directed to a complete set of sections cut every 10 ft through the first core, permitting me to confirm Maaløe’s suggestion that it reached the intrusion floor and also to demonstrate the pulsed filling of the magma chamber. Christian Tegner of Aarhus University in Denmark is now involved in bulk geochemical and mineralogical analysis of this material.

I am delighted to report that this unique and immensely important core, the product of Wager and Deer’s fine scientific judgement, while still strictly speaking not “fully examined”, is the subject of intense and rewarding ongoing research.

*Department of Earth Sciences

Wager at Durham

From Eric Robinson (Rec'd 14.1.08, Pub'd 15.1.08)

Sir, The excellent acount of the life and work of Lawrence Wager by Geoff Glasby in Geoscientist 17/2 brought back memories of Durham University in 1947-49 which might add to the picture of that very full and distinguished life. In 1947, I won a Shell Scholarship to Durham University, then in two distinct and very different halves, the Durham Colleges and King’s College in Newcastle. The Colleges were Wager’s empire and it was he who interviewed me when the award was made.

He wasn’t alone. As I remember it, it was rather like a scene from the canvas When did you last see your father? I sat in a large horseshoe of academics of all faculties to be quizzed as to why I wanted to be a geologist. At sixteen, I wasn’t too sure, but Wager drew me out into taking about places I had visited in my brief and solitary field work (Geology was not a subject formally taught in Grammar schools in those days). Wager brought a helpful informality to the situation, in shirt sleeves and sporting thick canvas braces which could have moored an airship, in contrast to the others who were wearing academic gowns.

The outcome was that I went to King’s while Malcolm Brown went to the Durham Colleges with Wager. This in some ways fulfilled a widely held notion that, in taking students, Wager was actually assessing potential mountaineers and Arctic Explorers, students who could match him in stern and testing conditions. Apart from Malcolm Brown who fitted the bill, my other Durham friend in those years was Doug Firman who obviously didn’t. The result was that Doug worked like a Trojan measuring joint patterns and field relationships in the Shap granite suffering great hardships on Shap Fell compared to his more robust colleagues working in Skye or Arran.

There was a rivalry between the two divisions at Durham which persisted right up to the year when King’s finally broke free, a rivalry which was tested on the sports field and in more academic circles. At King’s, we had a slight inferiority complex involving our two professors. While at Durham, Wager was awarded the Stalin Prize which he translated into an Austin 12 saloon, quite a motor in 1948. At Newcastle, Profesor Hickling possessed what at best we would call an Austin Super Seven, decidedly less grand, although he drove it like a maniac. In all respects, Hickling was the archetypal absent minded professor, capable of asking You are one of my boys? when we met outside college. As there were only four of us, and we were all boys in those days, it did little for our confidence, although we wouldn’t have done anything to admit it.

On reflection, I fear I might not have stood up to the rigours of the Wager regime. It did wonders for Malcolm Brown who went to Skaergaard as a second year student while I went to Alston and the Yoredales of the Nent Valley. Geology is still like that, a filter which brings diverse opportunities without the requiirement of a background acquired through Outward Bound or British Schools expeditions.

Letters 2007

Should we worry about "Intelligent Design"?

From Mike Streetly (Rec'd & Pub'd 24.10.07)

Sir, For many years geoscientists in the UK have watched with bemusement the pronouncements of creationists in the USA and wondered why key figures such as Stephen Jay Gould should spend so much effort attacking this position. The recent decision in the Dover (Pennsylvania) case establishing that intelligent design (ID) “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” might have been expected to put the issue of the teaching of creationism/ID in schools to rest. However, three publications this autumn show that the issue is alive and well this side of the pond.

On 17 Sept the Council of Europe issued a report concluding that ‘Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes’.

Then the Government issued guidance to teachers explaining that ID ‘is sometimes erroneously advanced as scientific theory but has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community. Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the National Curriculum for science, but there is scope for schools to discuss creationism as part of Religious Education.

Also in early October Prof Michael Reiss (University of London) launched a book for science teachers who want their students to understand the scientific position on the origins of the universe and life on earth. He argued that a rise in creationism was making it increasingly difficult to teach evolution in British schools. Some science teachers were, as a result, ignoring the topic of evolution completely.

It is likely that some if not all of this activity is in response to a 2006 campaign by the Christian group 'Truth in Science' which sent every secondary school in the UK DVDs promoting ID. Truth is Science clearly has many parallels with the Discovery Institute in the USA which has been one of the main agencies in the recent development of Intelligent Design as a distinct off shoot of creationism. A key feature of both organisations is an emphasis on the scientific background of many of the Board of Directors. While most of the BScs and PhDs are of limited relevance to the evidence base for evolutionary theory, Paul Garner (Scientific Panel of Truth in Science) holds a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Science (Geology and Biology) and is a Fellow of the Geological Society.

With Charles Darwin's bicentennial coming up in 2009 (which is also 150 years after the publication of The Origin of Species) and given the current high profile of this subject would it not be appropriate for the Geological Society to have a position on this matter (as does the Royal Society for instance http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298)?

From Antony Wyatt (Rec’d & Pub’d 8.11.07)

Sir, I support Mike Streetly’s call for a published Geological Society position paper on creationism and intelligent design (ID). I would, however, stress that this is not just a question about evolution that can be left to trouble biologists and palaeontologists. Proponents of ID claim that their ideas are based on the complexity of living organisms, and imply that they have no basis in sacred texts (thus supposedly distancing themselves from creationists). But many, if not virtually all of them, having claimed that the scientific method is flawed, fall back on a belief in the Bible or the Koran. We should consider the implications for the whole of geology.

The biblical creation myth is not very long (in fact there are several contradictory myths, so I will confine my comments to Genesis 1), but it sets out an order of creation that can be tested against the evidence. This includes not only the order of appearance of different life forms, which can be compared to the fossil record (which is simply a record of what has been found in rocks and is independent of, though best explained by evolution), but also the order in which a number of physical events occurred.

The Bible has the Earth, and flowering plants, created before the sun, moon, and stars. I hope that all fellows of the Society would agree that this goes against modern scientific thinking. Not only is there the problem that the origin of the elements requires fusion reactions in stars, so the biblical view implies an Earth (and flowering plants) made up only of hydrogen and helium (all mineralogists, petrographers and botanists take note), but there is also the question of how flowering plants could survive without the sun.

Going from an Earth alone in space, to an Earth/moon pair (and the rest of the planets) orbiting the sun is also a problem. There should be no tidal or Milankovitch cyclicity signals prior to the first flowering plants. And, of course, there is the matter of scientifically validated dates for rocks from the moon, and the calculated distances to other galaxies, both of which show that the moon and many galaxies were in existence long before the first flowering plants appeared.

None of the scientific evidence fits with the biblical story. Creationists and ID supporters are not just arguing that evolution is false. They are also implying that much of the rest of science is also untrue. Any Geological Society position paper should make it clear that it is not just evolution that we support: it is the scientific method, and, in particular, the application of the scientific method to the study of the Earth.

From Martin Lack (Rec’d 12 Pub’d 13.11.07)

Sir, With reference to Mike Streetly’s call for the Society to have a published position paper on Intelligent Design (24 October, see above), I should wish to stress that, while science is clearly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, it is not incompatible with faith in God. Furthermore, whereas there are numerous “dubious” organisations out there, there are also some that are entirely “serious”, such as Christians in Science (of which I am not a member, incidentally).

Hold the flyer, save the world - reply

From Dave Greenwood (Rec'd 4.01.08; Pub'd 8.01.08)

Sir, David Nowell's letter (see below), coupled with Alison Tucker's report (Geoscientist, November 2007 - also below) has led me to think of other ways in which the Society could reduce its carbon footprint. In particular, having now made extensive use of the Lyell Collection to download papers to my PC, it occurred to me that I do not really need to receive any further paper copies of GSL periodicals. Surely the time has come to offer Fellows the option of an "electronic only" membership category to all serial publications for a reasonable annual contribution. That would save countless trees, preserve china clay reserves, lower energy consumption, ease the load for the poor postman, and last, but not least, give some respite to my creaking bookshelves. After all, when I'm gone, my treasured back issues will probably all end up in a skip!

Neal Marriott, Director of Publishing, replies:

Dear David, Thank you for your timely correspondence regarding the options for electronic-only access to Fellow’s journals. The Society has been actively considering precisely this service for some time now and should be in a position to offer Fellow’s the option to decline print versions in the near future. The complications have had nothing to do with the technicalities of online publishing, nor the administration of a dual (ie print + electronic, or electronic-only) system; rather, it has been the implications of European VAT regulations which mean that print-inclusive subscriptions are mostly VAT-exempt, whereas electronic only subscriptions attract the full 17.5% VAT.

One word of warning, however! The additional VAT charges will more or less balance the savings in print and distribution – so there are unlikely to be any cost savings to pass on to Fellows.

Laminate this!

From Geoscientist January 08, p12.

Readers of the November issue may have noticed the correspondence suggesting that the Society’s Publishing House review its practices for the printing of flyers promoting new book titles, in order to reduce environmental impact.

The Publishing House has now completed a review of the material used for its book covers (and the flyers which are produced as part of the same continuous print run) and is pleased to announce that it will be changing to a new laminate from early in 2008.

In recent years our book covers have been finished using a high-quality laminate. This not only creates a bright and attractive finish, but produces a highly durable surface to ensure that our books are resistant to long term wear and tear. The downside has been that the laminate has been oil-based and this renders the flyers non-recyclable.

Starting with the earliest titles in the 2008 list the Publishing House will be switching to CelloGreen film, a printing product based on cellulose and derived from wood pulp produced from forests managed for sustainability. The finished covers (and promotional flyers) should be indistinguishable from those produced in the past – but are now recyclable, biodegradable and compostable. Neal Marriott

Hold the flyer, save the world

From David Nowell (Rec'd & Pub'd 26.9.07)

Sir, Whatever we like to think, individually there is very little we can do to lessen our environmental impact without collective action, governmental intervention and international agreements. However, in its bicentennial year the Geological Society can set a small example by making its endless stream of flyers for special publications recyclable. These numerous flyers are printed on the back of very durable plasticized book covers, which unlike colour printed paper cannot be disposed of easily.

Given that flyers require a separate print run, there is no need to use the same energy-intensive materials as for these excellent covers. Even if paper flyers will appear slightly dull in comparison, this will significantly reduce their environmental impact and should reduce the cost of printing this ephemeral advising material.

Neal Marriott, Director of Publishing replies: The Publishing House produces its covers using high quality laminated papers not just to create an attractive finish, but to produce a durable surface to ensure that our books are highly resistant to long-term wear and tear.

The advertising flyers that Fellows and others receive are, in fact, produced as part of an extended print run of the covers themselves, and not by some separate process (this is by far the most cost effective way of doing it). The cover materials are not plasticised, but are manufactured using an oil-based laminate - though this does, unfortunately, render the flyers non-recyclable. There are recyclable alternatives available and the Publishing House is actively considering whether these more environmentally friendly options are suitable for book covers.

Chicxulub nemesis

From Tom Dunkley Jones (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.07)

Sir, Perhaps I'm one of many who were slightly surprised by the tone of your recent article, "Impact Factor", in this month's Geoscientist. I accept that scientists should be civil in their dealings with one another and allow a fair discussion of all the evidence. It is a great shame then, that you failed to provide any space for the "majority" view, which represents years of hard and painstaking work into the events across the K-P boundary. Inviting an expert reply on these matters may have been of more benefit to both your readership and the scientific standing of the Geoscientist.

I can understand your concerns about the way we do science, perhaps we sometimes delude ourselves beneath the veil of impartial and objective judgement, but it does not help when you dismiss years of work and cogent arguments without a second thought. The "grey" literature is highly important in society today, perhaps the place where science is communicated to a wider public, which, I believe, makes it all the more important for writers to accurately represent the current scientific debates to our best ability.

First, by a short Necker

From Norman Butcher (Rec'd & Pub'd 9.7.07)

Sir, it is good that Brighid O'Dochartaigh draws attention (17.8 August 2007 p8) to the BGS poster reproduction at half scale of John McCulloch's geological map of Scotland. However, MacCulloch's is not the first geological map of the country, as the headline states. That distinction belongs to the map presented by Louis Albert Necker of Geneva to the infant Society on 4 November 1808.

Necker's hand-coloured manuscript map was apparently accompanied by an explanatory memoir, which seems not to have survived. The map was not published until 1939 by the Edinburgh Geological Society and w2as the subject of a paper by Victor Eyles in the Society's Transactions in 1948, as noted by Gordon Herries-Davies in his recent history. Necker's remarkable map was reprinted by Bartholomew & Son in 1985, in Edinburgh.

Janet Watson at outcrop, with John Sutton

"Janet Watson Lecture Theatre"

Editor's note: We reproduce here some of the letters received in reaction to the Council suggestion to name the Lecture Theatre for the Society's first woman President, Janet Watson. The idea was publicisesd in the July and August editions of Geoscientist. So far there have been three letters against and 33 in favour. Ted Nield

From Rex Davis (Rec'd 20.10; Pub'd 22.10. 2007)

Sir, During my five years as Head of the Geology Department at Imperial College in the 1970s, I successfully proposed three hard-to-get promotions to Professorships. These were: John Knill (Engineering Geology), Douglas Shearman (Sedimentology) and Janet Watson. All three distinguished themselves, among many others, at a time of great forward movement in geology generally, and also in the welfare of the Society.

The special and unique accomplishment of Janet Watson, however, was to earn the accolade of becoming our first woman President. I am delighted now to follow up my high regard for Janet over three decades ago by warmly applauding the Council proposal to mark this milestone in the history of the Society by naming our Lecture Theatre in her memory.

From Richard Symonds (Rec'd 11.10; Pub'd 15.10.2007)

Sir, Does the Geological Society Lecture Theatre need another name at all? It already has a long name. To change it to the Geological Society (of London) Janet Watson Lecture Theatre, for this is what it would have to be known as to everyone other than the officers, staff and regulars of the Society, seems too much.

The definite article holds the clue; there is just the one lecture theatre. To name it after Watson (or anyone else) implies there is another lecture theatre from which it needs to be distinguished. If the Society had more than one lecture theatre (as it does meeting rooms or libraries) then some form of additional identification would be needed; but it doesn't.

Unlike Lyell, Buckland, Holmes and the alternatives suggested (Smith and Darwin), Watson's reputation does not seem to be growing as time passes. As the other letters show, it seems to be limited to members of a generation with whom she had personal contact.

I don't doubt their sentiments are sincere. In this case sentiment is not enough. Fred Dunning wrote a polite and reasonable letter against the Council proposal suggesting that William Smith might be honoured instead, in view of the injustice done to him - to which the Editor responded by suggesting that the Society might have regard instead to the need to right "what many believe has been the Society's historical collective insult to the whole of womanhood". I doubt even the name of Janet Watson could right that wrong.

Please Council, pull back from adding to the sum of human misery by the generation of redundant monikers; but if you insist I would vote for Darwin.

From Darren Page (Rec'd 10.10; Pub'd 15.10.2007)

Sir, While I do not doubt Janet Watson’s valuable contribution to certain aspects of geology there are just so many individuals who have equally made their contribution to geology and the Society over the past 200 years who will never be fully appreciated and it does a huge disservice to these people to single out one person in this way.

I acknowledge that many have been acclaimed but by and large this has been many years after their death or a long time ago. For a learned society one’s legacy is the work they have done and their contribution to the betterment of knowledge. For it is only on this that they can be judged and remembered.

May I suggest that if anything is named after an individual that it is done so well after their death and also the death of their peers and acquaintances when a balanced and unemotional view of their contribution to science and society can be made? I am not in favour of this proposal and would strongly urge others to think again. I do not see that being a nice person, a woman or a great tutor are sufficient reasons for such an accolade.

From Michael D Max (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.10.2007)

Sir, I would like to express my strong support for naming the lecture Theatre after Janet Watson. I think it is very appropriate in general while I feel it is even more appropriate in particular. My first visit to the Geol Soc was in the company of Janet, who brought myself and some other hangers-on along with a group of Imperial College geologists to an evening meeting. I believe that she was also one of my proposers for fellowship. That began an extremely pleasant and useful period for me during what could now described as the golden age of structural and metamorphic geological researches in the 20th Century.

From Julia Hubbard (Rec'd & Pub'd 21.9.2007)

I have no views on this gallant gesture to the late Prof Janet Watson FRS: but I am reminded of the fact that until the revamping of the rooms at Somerset House for the Courtauld, the rooms still bore the titles of the Geological Society Executives' Positions over their portals. So I have little confidence of this type of gallantry lasting very long.

It is however a nice thought. Janet is certainly worthy of the honour on all counts. As Jake would say she doesn't need to adhere to fefeminist causes she is one by example.

From Tim Whitten (Rec'd 17.09.07; Pub'd 21.09.2007)

Council’s recent decision in favour of naming the Society’s Lecture Theatre for Professor Janet Watson was, in my view, an excellent and appropriate decision because of Janet’s stature as a scientist and communicator; those skills were often displayed at Burlington House. I hope a wide cross-section of the fellowship agrees.

Because Janet’s untimely death occurred some 22 years ago, many fellows will not have known her personally. I was privileged, however, to have benefited from her wonderfully clear and crisp presentations in the Society’s lecture theatre during the 1950s, which was a particularly stimulating decade for British structural geology. Would that all papers were presented with such clarity! Although four years Janet Watson’s junior, I was on the academic staff of one of the other University of London geology departments from hers during the 1950s and followed keenly the development of her stimulating research and communication skills, which were displayed so frequently and regularly at the Society. It seems so appropriate to name the Lecture Theatre after a fellow who was such an excellent geologist and lecturer, who published extensively in the Society’s Journal, and who went on to be one of its distinguished presidents. I appreciate the opportunity to support the Council’s decision.

From John Richardson (Rec'd 13.09.07, Pub'd 21.09.2007)

In the mid-1950s, my undergraduate days, the work of Sutton and Watson in the Highlands was synonymous with excellence. Later when I lectured at King’s College and came to know them both I appreciated why. At Geol. Soc. Meetings and on visits to Imperial College I often met Janet and was even more impressed. Marjorie Muir, one of Janet’s colleagues, always spoke very highly of her and I am sure that Marjorie would want me to add her support to mine. Janet Watson was one of those very rare individuals who combined scientific excellence and success, and highly developed communication skills, with a helpful, pleasant, patient nature. She was an excellent lecturer and a brilliant teacher. The proposal to name the Burlington House Lecture Theatre for Janet Watson has my wholehearted support.

From Paul Compton (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.9.2007)

Sir, I met Janet Watson when she was my PhD external examiner in 1978. She impressed me not only as an excellent and skilled geologist, but as a warm human being, dedicated to her chosen role in geology education and research. While I cannot class her among the “greats” of geology (everyone has their own personal list), naming the lecture theatre after her is a fitting memorial, and makes a clear statement that that the Geological Society is not a stuffy, misogynistic organization.

From Barbara Dickinson (Rec'd 5; Pub'd 6 September 2007)

Sir, Yes! A thousand times Yes!

From Howard Johnson (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.2007)

Sir, I would like to give your proposal to re-name the GSL lecture theatre after Janet Watson my complete support. This has little to do with my present association with IC, but everything to do with the influence that Janet Watson had on me personally as well as so many other geologists of my generation. As an A-level student in the late 60's, the two Read and Watson books were immensely important and contributed to many taking up the subject in the first place, either at school or as a new subject at university. I don't think we can overestimate her enduring influence on both academic geology and its professional applications. Consequently, I am fully behind the Council's proposal for the Janet Watson Lecture Theatre.

From Stuard Baldwin (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.2007)

Sir, Many years ago I had the pleasure of sitting on a committee with Janet Watson. Both intellectually and as a person I found her exceptionally stimulating and kind and fully support the idea of naming the Lecture Theatre in her honour.

From Annette Cutler (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.07)

As the first female to become a Chartered Geologist, I note the proposal to name the lecture theatre for Professor Janet Watson, to which I am compelled to write and offer my support. Although I never had the honour to meet her, Professor Watson was an inspiration not only to myself as a budding female geologist but also to my male contemporaries. Professors Sutton and Watson texts were quoted on a regular basis throughout my university years, but it was she, who caught the imagination of those young undergraduates such that it was her name that was frequently mentioned in conversation. As a young professional geologist, I similarly frequently heard her name mentioned throughout Geological Society meetings and events. Professor Watson has clearly had a lasting influence on a great many of us and made a major contribution to geological knowledge in the last century. Council’s proposal is a fitting tribute to a highly distinguished and influential geologist and, in my opinion, a great woman of our time.

From John F Dewey (Rec'd & Pub'd 4.9.07)

Sir, The GSL should have no hesitation in naming its lecture theatre "The Janet Watson Lecture Theatre". Janet was a wonderful friend and mentor to many IC students, including me. She was not only one of the towering, original, and clever figures of geology but was an extraordinarily good teacher. She was not only admired but loved deeply by all who knew her.

From Jane MacKelvie Jutsum (Rec'd & Pub'd 3.9.07)

Sir, I would like to see the room named after Janet Watson as she managed to combine being a brilliant academic with being a kind and inspirational teacher and a delightful person. The fact that she was the first female president of Geol Soc is also relevant. Perhaps it is because she always came after the “and” (Read and Watson; Sutton and Watson), that her light never really shone from under the bushel in the way it should have done. This is an opportunity to put this right and give her the credit that she is due.

Although I no longer work in geology (I am a barrister with the CPS), I enjoyed my studies at Swansea and Imperial in the 1970s and 1980s with two remarkable groups of academics. I still like to try to understand the advances documented in Geol Soc publications, with a varying degree of success!

From Andrew Cheatle (Rec'd & Pub'd 24.7.8)

Sir, The Council's proposal to name the Society's Lecture Theatre after Professor Janet Watson is most fitting. As an undergraduate at the Royal School of Mines, Imperial College (1982-85) I was fortunate to have been taught - regrettably all too briefly - by Prof. Watson. Her lectures were always of immense quality and given with passion for the subject. Professor Watson was an inspirational lecturer who imbued a strong spirit of scientific inquiry into the students she taught.

Over the years, I have come to realise what a privilege it was to have her as a lecturer and to this day I can still recall (paraphrased here) her introduction to the Phanerozoic/Palaeozoic in first year General Geology: "....and moving onto the recent past; and by that I mean the Cambrian."

I support the proposal.

From Dr Tony M Spencer (Rec'd & Publ'd 23.8.07)

Sir, This is a very good idea. I remember Janet at many GSL meetings in the period 1968 - 1979. She talked to everyone about geology and was full of interest in our subject.

From Prof. John Murray (Rec'd & Publ'd 15.8.2007)

Sir, I fully support the proposal to name the lecture theatre in honour of Janet Watson because she was an outstanding geologist and an excellent teacher.

From Eva Paproth (Rec'd 12.8: Publ'd 15.8.2007)

Sir, May I be permitted to express my real delight that Council plans to name the Society's Meeting Room for Prof. Janet Watson. I am very much in favour of that proposition. I had the honour to know her from working in IGCP Project 861, many years ago, and I shall never forget her most efficient and most amiable great personality.

From Prof. Fred Dunning (Rec'd & Pub'd 13.8.07)

Sir, I had a high opinion of Janet Watson as a person and as an outstanding Highland geologist. However, notwithstanding her eminence in British geology, she does not in my opinion (and I am sure not in her own opinion) rate as "one of the greatest geologists of the 20th Century" to quote the recent Geoscientist article. Her work is known to comparatively few Earth scientists on the world scene.

However there is one great figure in British geology and geological science generally who does merit your description and that is William Smith. Although treated shabbily by the Society during much of his lifetime, the Society made up for this in later years and after his death, when the stupendous magnitude of his contribution as the founding father of stratigraphical geology and the first geological mapper of his native country came to be understood and appreciated. Short perhaps of naming the Meeting Room after Charles Darwin (for which a case could be made), nothing could be more apt than the "William Smith Room". No-one would demur at this and the world at large would applaud it. It would stand alongside William Smith’s famous map in Burlington House.

Would the Janet Watson proposal have been made if she had been a male geologist with the same body of work and reputation? I think not.

From Dr Malcolm Jenyon (Rec’d and Pub’d 11.8.2007)

As a comment on the "Society Business" section in the August Geoscientist I most strongly support the choice of naming the Lecture Theatre in honour of Professor Janet Watson. From early familiarity with her work in my undergraduate days, to the great privilege I had in the early 1980s of holding a fascinating conversation with her as a fellow guest at a dinner in London, I have esteemed this gentle, intellectually formidable lady. Her name certainly deserves to be included in any list of the great geologists.

From Helen Nattrass (Rec's & Pub'd 9.8.07)

Sir, I am in favour of the theatre being named after Janet Watson. I did Geology BSc in the mid 70s at the RSM. I had not studied geology at school but I thought it sounded interesting and might lead to exciting employment. Well, I arrived knowing virtually nothing about rocks or the Earth.

After three weeks there was a compulsory field trip to Devon. I can remember Janet Watson and John Knill, among others, on that first excursion.

I have a vivid recollection of standing on the sea-shore one October morning when Janet was talking about the Devonian limestone. She had a small group around her and she was explaining something of what could be seen in the specimen. I, who knew absolutely nothing, asked "So how do you know it's limestone?" There were a few gasps and titters. Janet stopped and explained very kindly and lucidly how one identified limestone in the field. She did not make fun of me, took my question seriously and gave the answer - such an elementary point for an FRS.

I ended up following John Knill's footsteps in my degree and professional life. But I have always remembered that early moment with Janet Watson. I was amazed that such a famous and senior member of staff could be bothered to accompany 1st year 'know-nothing' students on a low-level elementary piece of course-work.

From Prof. Rick Sibson (Rec'd & Pub'd) 9.8.07)

Sir, I had the immense privilege of being supervised by Janet Watson during my PhD research on the Outer Hebrides Thrust in the early 1970s. She was a wonderful and warm human being whose scientific acumen and perceptive insights were matched only by her thoughtfulness - and the care she took in overseeing the hesitant footsteps of young scientists while at the same time allowing them to pursue their own research paths.

I fully and heartily endorse the proposal to name the Burlington House Lecture Theatre after her - a very fitting tribute.

From Prof. Gordon Craig (Rec'd & Pub'd 7.8 2007)

Sir, Excellent idea to name the theatre after Janet. If only all geologists could talk and write as clearly and concisely as she did. I first met her in 1953 when we were both speaking at the Geol.Soc. She was presenting a metamorphic paper on behalf of Derek Flinn: I was talking about Carboniferous paleoecology. In those days the theatre had opposing rows of seats, House of Commons style. Gertie Elles was there with her ear trumpet!

Afterwards Janet and I were invited to eat at the Dining Club - which turned out to be in a basement room down some dingy stairs at a nearby pub. At the end of the meal we were asked to leave because the members had private business to attend to! And so, somewhat perplexed and overawed by the occasion we found ourselves back on the dark streets of London...

From Lady Diane Knill (Rec’d 3.8, Pub’d 5.8.07)

Sir, I strongly support the proposal that the Lecture Theatre should be named for Janet Watson. I was fortunate enough to be a Ph.D. student at Imperial College when both John Sutton and Janet Watson were members of the staff. Indeed John Sutton was my supervisor.

Prior to coming to Imperial (I was a geology undergraduate at Queen's Belfast - most regrettably a department that no longer exists) and was inspired by the work which Janet and John were publishing at that time. Indeed they, along with H.H. Read, were the magnets which drew me to Imperial for my research.

Although Janet was in many ways a very unassuming person there was no doubting her formidable intellect and geology owes much to her research into metamorphic geology and Pre-Cambrian stratigraphy. Janet was always approachable and I am sure she has been an inspiration to many female geologists. I have always been proud that I knew her both as a geologist and a friend.

From Joe McCall (Rec'd 15.07, Pub'd 1.08)

Sir, As her PhD student contemporary and one who spent a sabbatical year in 1967 sharing an office with Janet Watson, I think the idea about naming the lecture theatre after her is splendid. She was a most courageous lady with a brilliant brain. However, as Gordon Herries Davies emphasises in his excellent book, the Society has a long history of male chauvinism. I found it still rife at the University of Western Australia in the 1960s, where the late Professor Prider would not give field instruction to female students and passed them to me (he disliked me, and imagined he was doing me a disfavour, which was far from the case!). One year I taught five very bright female students, and one of them has remained a friend for life.

I suggest that a plaque be put on the wall stating the dedication to Janet, stating that it also reflects the Society's appreciation of Mary Anning, a strange omission by Herries Davies (for whom the Society contributed a relief fund and a memorial window to Lyme Regis church) and all those female geologists who have made important contributions to geology through the first 200 years of the Society's history. In this way, a longstanding wrong by our predecessors will be acknowledged and, I trust, laid to rest. I have a soft spot for Rachel Workman (Lady MacRobert) who lost three sons in WW2, but splendidly donated a Lancaster bomber in their memory named "MacRobert’s reply". She also donated funds for text books for ex-service students to H H Read, and I was one grateful recipient.

Desk Job (continued)

From Dr Deryck Laming (Rec’d & Pub’d 26 July 2007)

Sir, I wish to express my incredulity at the design of Society's new reception desk. Rather like the man who every day lunched in the Eiffel Tower because that was the only place from which he could not see it, the receptionist is the only one not condemned to view the pile from the front.

But I have another sad comment: the bleakness of the entrance hall. Where are the jolly book displays of yesteryear, the comfortable chairs where the London-weary traveller could sit for a few minutes (there was even a geological jewellery display cabinet, where once I was persuaded to make a purchase)? From the stark bareness of this new hallway we now see the pile of tombstones whose tonnes of uncouth and clashing design cannot boast even a milligram of sensitivity.

It stands as an object lesson: never let a geologist design a public building, and never let an architect design a geological feature, especially one in the heart of the profession's headquarters.

(Further correspondence in this series can be found below - Editor)

Not ON...

From Anna Grayson (Rec'd 3 July Pub'd 17 July 2007)

Sir, Readers should be aware (ONward and upward, Geoscientist 17,6 pp24-25) that the BBC did in fact commission a number of programmes and associated publications during the 80s and 90s with strong and robust geological themes including - Geology; Rock Solid; Postcards from the Past, Essential Guide to Rocks, Mars Weekend, The Ology Hour, Earthworks.

Neither Martine Benoit nor John Simmons had any involvement with these programmes. To lump these broadcasts with "weather porn" is false and to imply that their content might also have been limited to death, disaster and destruction inaccurate.

Global flatulence

From Michael F Ridd* Rec’d 11 July; Pub’d 13 July 2007

Sir, The Global Warming bandwagon gathers pace and it is hardly possible to open a newspaper or turn on the TV news without another story warning us that man’s actions are causing the ice-caps to melt or hurricanes to increase in intensity. The justification usually given that the warming is anthropogenic and not natural is that there is a consensus among climate scientists who agree that it is so. And now Colin Summerhayes tells us the same thing in the July issue of Geoscientist – “Global Warming: A Basic Primer”.

What has happened to normal and proper scientific scepticism? Geologists don’t wish to know what the consensus view is; we want to hear the evidence so that we can form our own opinions. Why, for example, was there a period of global cooling lasting several decades in the middle of the 20^th Century when atmospheric CO₂ emissions continued to rise? And what was the source of the high CO₂ concentrations that correlate with warm periods in the geological past? Is Colin able to prove me wrong if I opine that it may be the warming which causes the increase in CO₂ rather than the reverse?

Of course, we should seek to conserve our finite resources of fossil fuels and protect the planet from pollution. But when the broadcast media warn us (as they have this week) that the flatulence of farm animals is contributing to global warming we can be forgiven for thinking that maybe hysteria is taking over.

* michaelfridd@aol.com

Desk Job (continued)

From Robert Sandford,
Julian Harrap (Architects)
(Rec'd & Pub'd 23.5.07 )

Sir, Not being a geologist and at the risk of generating further correspondence, I thought that, as architect for the new Reception Desk at the Geological Society, I should attempt to explain the ‘stratigraphical confusions’ (Geoscientist vol. 17.5 May 2007).

The design concept for the desk was to use stones native to the British Isles, arranged in the three main rock groups, that is, igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic, with the lower levels at the base of the desk comprising granites, rising through limestones and sandstones to the genetically subsequent metamorphic marbles and slates at the counter top. The seventeen stone courses making up the desk were not, therefore, based solely on ‘aesthetic criteria’ but were arranged in geological age as identified in the National Stone Directory 2004–5.

Within each rock group the individual courses are layered chronologically so that, for example, the limestones and sandstones rise from the Devonian Caithness Flagstone (course 14) up to the Hurdcott green sandstone of the Cretaceous at course 3.

While it would have been geologically correct to complete the desk at counter top level with the youngest stones, in practical terms this would have been inappropriate as we needed to provide a durable and easily maintainable counter top.

According to my geological source books, as metamorphic rocks are formed from pre-existing rocks, I thought it justifiable to complete the desk at the upper level with Burlington Slate and Connemara marble (courses 1 and 2, respectively).

I appreciate that, from a purely geological viewpoint, it is regrettable that some of the layers are partially obscured, by overlying courses. Here, I must accept that architectural considerations took precedence.

As well as layering and grouping the stones chronologically, the design concept for the desk was also to reflect and exaggerate the stratification of rock formations in, for example, cliff faces and quarries - thereby to provide a contemporary piece of furniture that can be readily identified with the Geological Society.

As Eric Robinson’s article and numerous emails appear to suggest, the desk has already provided both a learning tool and a talking point for members and visitors alike!

History, man

From P Holroyd (Rec'd and Pub'd 16 May 2007)

Sir, Rarely have I come across a book that is so readable, enjoyable and informative as "Whatever is Under the Earth" - the 200-year history of The Geological Society, written by Gordon Herries Davies. Author and publisher are to be congratulated on producing an incredibly detailed record of the Society's history in such a high quality book.

Desk Job

From Prof. Dick Selley (Rec’d & Pub’d 8 May 2007)

Sir, Once upon a time, Bob the Builder bought a load of blank tombstones (Geoscientist 17.5 May 2007 p.10) at a knock down price when the monumental masons “Gravestones ‘R' Us'” went into receivership. He flogged them to the contractors refurbishing the Society's apartments. Bob delivered the tombstones when all the staff were out to lunch. As his white van was parked in Piccadilly he hurriedly stacked the gravestones in a pile with no thought for structure or stratigraphy. When the staff returned from lunch they thought that the pile was a work of art by Tracy Hirst, Damien Emin, or some such, admired them and continued about their duties.

The pile will no doubt stay there until the end of the Holocene, while Murchison rotates in his grave like a drill-bit shouting 'I just don't believe it'.

From Prof Bernard E Leake (Rec'd and Pub'd 10 May 07)

Sir, Connemara Marble is a metamorphosed impure dolomite (Geoscientist 17.5 May 2007 p.11). The characteristic green colour derives from serpentinised olivine (~98% Forsterite, Mg₂SiO₄), tremolite Ca₂Mg₅Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂ and some diopside CaMgSi₂O₆, all of which minerals require Mg from dolomite and Si from clay or quartz impurities and the last two also need Ca.The excess Ca makes the calcite part of the marble. The green colour comes from the presence of minute traces of Fe. As you already have several limestones in the desk, it actually is an improvement to have one dolomite!

From Dr Chris Thomas (Rec'd & Pub'd 29 March 2007)

Sir, It was interesting to read Professor Nick Petford’s call for geochemists to embrace the full range of statistical techniques available to analyse the now vast amount of geochemical data that exist worldwide (Geoscientist 17, 3, p3). How right he is!

In his brief critique, the Harker diagram (and its variants) is highlighted as still being the chief means by which geochemists seek out trends amongst compositional variables, with the aim of elucidating the chemical and physical processes that underlie these variations. He mentions that the main weakness of such diagrams is their limited scope in terms of multivariate analysis.

From a statistical point of view, there is a further, more serious issue. Multivariate compositional data are, by their very nature, closed – they sum to a constant. This means that the trends observed in any diagram of such ‘raw’ compositional data (wt %, ppm…) are subject to spurious correlations. These reflect complex interrelationships between variables that, at least in part, may have no origin in the processes by which the rocks formed. In strictly statistical terms, these relationships are indeterminate and thus un-interpretable when standard statistical techniques are applied to ‘raw’ compositional data. Yet this problem is still largely ignored amongst geoscientists, despite the warnings and efforts of a number of petrologists and statisticians in recent years, beginning with Felix Chayes in the 1960s (Chayes 1960, 1962, 1971).

As John Aitchison has elucidated since the 1980s, the key is to examine ratios of compositional variables. Happily, this is something geologists and geochemists are very comfortable with, but perhaps without being aware of the way in which the ratios, especially in more tractable log form, free the data from the confines of closure and open up the data to standard multivariate analysis, (subject, of course, to all the usual caveats).

The Geological Society has recently published Special Publication 264: Compositional Data Analysis in the Geosciences (Buccianti et al. 2006). This volume reflects some of the work that has taken place most recently since the publication of John Aitchison’s monograph “The Statistical Analysis of Compostional Data” in 1986 (Aitchison 1986). The volume includes a number of applied papers that point towards a new era of sensible statistical analysis of compositions and includes papers on using a well-known spreadsheet package and the open source R software for compositional data analysis.

The numerical properties of compositional data are now well-rehearsed; teachers and students should be aware of the issues. The methods with which to treat such data in a robust and statistically sound manner are available. It is time for we geologists and geochemists to run with the new methods, to think in more depth about the nature of the wealth of data we have at our finger tips, and how we analyse them. Indeed, it is time for more creative thinking – and for more robust and statistically valid modelling.

*British Geological Survey, Edinburgh

The views expressed in this letter are personal and are not a corporate statement of the British Geological Survey. Published with the permission of the Executive Director, British Geological Survey (NERC).

References

* Aitchison, J. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. Chapman and Hall, London and New York.
* Buccianti, A., Mateu-Figueras, G. & Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. 2006. Compositional Data Analysis in the Geosciences: From Theory to Practice. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 264.
* Chayes, F. 1960. On correlation between variables of constant sum. Journal of Geophysical Research 65, 4185-4193.
* Chayes, F. 1962. Numerical correlation and petrographic variation. Journal of Geology 70, 440-452.
* Chayes, F. 1971. Ratio Correlation. University of Chicago Press, Illinois.

Climate change - a sceptic writes

from Peter Easton* (Rec'd and Pub'd 26 Feb)

Sir, I am disappointed that Geoscientist does not do more to defend the integrity of science in the climate change debate. Whether believer or skeptic, any scientist should feel discomfort with how the hysteria of politicians and journalists seems to lead the public perception of scientific ‘truth’. Many argue it is too risky to admit uncertainty, but this is a political rather than scientific conclusion. I myself remain unconvinced that manmade climate change is either significant or a significant threat – a view derived from the science rather than any lack of concern for the environment, whose protection I strongly believe in. The case is not made for industrialising our best country side with wind farms, or of swinging back to nuclear power before deciding we are satisfied with its safety.

I meet many nationalities through my work, but find that universal conviction exists only in the UK, with more (healthy) scepticism elsewhere. I do not expect to influence the views of committed believers with my own, but I implore all scientists to make the effort to judge the science for themselves, rather than be led by the headlines, or even the opinions of other scientists. A good source is the IPCC scientific reports (not the politicised Summary for Policymakers), as well as many other good studies.

As a leading scientific community, we have a duty to ensure that the freedom of legitimate scientific reason and debate is maintained, and to avoid being directed by political correctness. Earth scientists have a valuable role in understanding climate change, being more able than most to appreciate the significance of natural climate change against which manmade change must be compared. In fact, I would like to see a survey of Geoscientist readers’ views on climate change .

*Brussels, Belgium

Misnomers

from David James* (Recd'd and Pub'd 14.2)

Sir, Ted Nield prefaces his informative and evocative article on Estonian kukersite (Geoscientist, February 07, p2; feature p22 et seq.) by gleefully pointing out that this 'oil shale' is neither a shale nor contains oil; bringing to mind student days in the Welsh borders when Stuart McKerrow was wont to remind us that the 'Psammosteus Limestone' was neither a limestone nor did it contain Psammosteus.

A further misnomer in the article is the reference to the mammoth NKMZ** excavator as a 'dragline'. The photographs show that not only is the bucket jib-mounted (rather than solely cable-attached) but that it scoops outwards rather than dragging inwards .

This relict behemoth of Soviet superiority is thus a power shovel. In my student days there was Cold War rivalry for building the biggest dragline excavator; the Brits being first to a 100 yard boom only to be eclipsed two years later by the Soviets with a 100 metre boom and bigger bucket. A year later we used an even bigger bucket but on a slightly shorter boom so one could argue a draw. Sadly the graceful giant walking draglines built in the UK by Ransomes & Rapier for the Northamptonshire ironstone field are now scrapped but Fellows missing their Tonka toys might like to know that an American-built relict of the genre, 'Oddball', is still visible at St Aidans, near Leeds (www.iarecordings.org/dragline).

*Finedon, Northamptonshire

** Notes and Clarifications

Editor writes: I am grateful to Peter Grimshaw FGS who points out that the power shovel illustrated in the February issue was made by Novo-Kramatorsky Mashinostroitelny Zavod, and that the letters on its side are therefore NMKZ, not NKME (the Cyrillic capital "Z" being of course written like a backwards "E" So much for my Russian O-Level.).

NKMZ is a heavy engineering company based in Kramatorsk, in the Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine. In the late 40s of the 20th Century, NKMZ started production of the Type SE-3 power shovels and Type ESH-1 walking drag-lines which supplied the immense development of opencast mining at that time, as well as large hydroelectric power schemes involving large earth-moving operations.

In the early 50s, concurrently with implementation of the draglines in service, heavy-duty stripping shovels with the buckets of 15 m³ and 35 m³ in capacity were manufactured in the USSR. Later on, these power shovels were exported to Germany, Russia, India, China, Iran, Cuba, etc. NKMZ became known all over the world and its trade mark received general acceptance. In half a century, over 2000 power shovels were produced.

In the late 50s, when the opencast mining technologies become the primary ones throughout the world, NKMZ was the pioneer in manufacture of the wheel-type excavating machines, spreaders, trunk belt conveyors, mobile crushing plants, etc. in the USSR. In the early 60s, NKMZ started supplying equipment for ore mining plants and opencast coalfields.

For more information of this sort go to http://www.nkmz.com/English/index.html

Ted Nield

A weighty matter

From John Heathcote (Rec'd 10.1; Pub'd 11.1)

Sir, Our magazine has had a re-vamp and it's printed on different paper. The paper is made from 50% post-consumer waste which is a good thing. The previous layout did not state the source of the paper pulp. But the new magazine is nearly 50% heavier than the old one, so the energy cost of moving them around the UK and the world is proportionately higher, which is a bad thing.

I treat Geoscientist as a magazine, not a journal. It survives only a couple of months before heding off for recycling. Therefore I don't think we need to use high quality paper suitable for long storage, only the cheapest, lightest and most recycled stuff that will take a reasonable quality of print.

Editor replies:

I am not sure what other magazines Dr Heathcote reads to give him the impression that they are printed on lower quality paper than academic journals, but I don't believe the correlation applies past the Exchange & Mart. However I can assure him on a few points. The previous paper contained no recycled material. It was difficult to use because of static build-up as it passed the press, and its grey colour and show-through meant that readability was compromised.

The new paper is not only heavier but whiter. This, combined with the new font has made the magazine more readable for those Fellows with failing eyesight (about everyone over 40). And John will, I hope, be happy to hear that subsequent issues of the year will be printed on slightly lighter 100gsm stock, not the 115gsm stock we used for the January issue. It may also interest readers to know that this improvement in quality has come at no extra cost to the Fellows, either from printing or posta

Letters to the Society

Writing to the Society

Letters 2009

Now adults, try some common sense!

From David James (Rec'd 4 March; Pub'd 9 march 2010)

Ice sheets

From Bruce Denness (Rec'd 9; Pub'd 10 March 2010)

References

From Peter Barker (Rec’d 6 March; Pub’d 9 March 2010)

1984 and all that - reply

From Griff Cordey (Rec’d & Pub’d 25 February 2010)

Charter for change?

From Wendy Furgusson (Rec’d 19, Pub’d 24 February 2010)

Peak pique

From Dr David Antia (Rec’d & Pub’d 23 February 2010)

Climate Change

From Hugh Richards (Rec'd & Pub'd 20 January 2010)

Relocation of Gilmerton UKCS to Keyworth

From John Ludden (Executive Director) & Richard Hughes (Director of Information and Knowledge Exchange), BGS. (Rec’d & Pub’d 24 November 2009)

From John Collinson (Rec’d & Pub’d 10 November 2009)

From Andy Sims (Rec’d & Pub’d 5 November 2009)

From John Collinson (Rec’d & Pub’d 4 November 2009)

From Robert Leppard (Rec’d & Pub’d 23 September 2009)

Sea level short termism

From Paul Lovatt-Smith (Rec’d 4.11; Pub’d 5.11.2009)

Bristol’s not alone

From Andy Lane (Rec’d & Pub’d 3.11.2009)

Hydraulic Despotism - alive and well in China

From Jonathan Harrop (Rec’d 28.10; Pub’d3.11.2009)

Evil scientists?

From Iain Bews. (Rec’d & Pub’d 3 November 2009)

Online only Journal? Bring it on!

From Michael Welland (Rec’d & Pub’d 21 October 2009)

From John Milson (Rec’d & Pub’d 7 October 2009)

Budding photogeologists beware!

From David Greenwood (Rec'd & Pub'd 21 October 2009)

Wrong on Snow

From Max Barton (Rec’d 16 October; Pub’d 20 October 2009)

London platform – mind the gap

From Hugh Owen (Rec’d & Pub’d 14 October 2009)

References

Planes tabled

From Derek Morris (Rec’d 11 October; Pub’d 13 October 2009)

From Robin Nicholson (Rec’d & Pub’d 13 August 2009)

Unsafe practice

From Alan Edwards (Rec’d 23, Pub’d 24 September 2009)

Editor replies: Alan is quite right - I have now added a safety warning to the caption on the online version.

Cores undervalued

From Robert Leppard (Rec’d & Pub’d 23 September 2009)

Wadia tributes

From Bruce Yardley (Rec'd 20 August; Pub'd 1 September 2009)

From Arthur Warden (Rec’d 25 August; Puvb’d 1 September 2009)

Loo paper threat

From R A Nicholls (Rec’d 25.9; Pub’d 1.10.2009)

From Robert Hird (Rec’d & Pub’d 1 September 2009)

From Susan Hay (Rec’d 31 August; Pub’d 1 September 2009)

From Colin Smith (Rec’d 17, Pub’d 18 August 2009)

From Tim Horscroft (Rec’d 17, Pub’d 18 August 2009)

From Jane Angus (Rec’d 17, Pub’d 18 August 2009)

From Peter Sykes (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

From Sarah Dack (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

From Guy Cassidy (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

From Phil Burris (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

From Stephen Dulson (Rec'd 10 June; Pub'd 17 June)

From Steve Hencher (Rec’d & Pub’d 6 August 2009)

From Graham Blackbourn (Rec’d & Pub’d 6 August 2009)

The following Society at Large article, which is relevant to this issue, will appear in the September issue of Geoscientist. Editor

Changes to terms and conditions

What premium for wind?

From Robert Freer (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

From Mike Stephen (Rec’d & Pub’d 19 August 2009)

Reflections on a Zombie

From Peter F Owen (Rec'd and Pub'd 5 August 2009)

References

From Richard Davies (Durham University), Joe Cartwright (Cardiff University), Rob Butler (Aberdeen University) Antony Pedley (Fugro Multi Client Services (UK) Limited) (Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)

References

Not just motherhood and apple pie

From William Hume (Rec'd 10 June; Pub'd 17 June)

Marketing overkill?

From John Milsom (Rec'd 4 June; Pub'd 17 June)

From Richard Davies (Durham University), Joe Cartwright (Cardiff University), Rob Butler (Aberdeen University) Antony Pedley (Fugro Multi Client Services (UK) Limited)

(Rec’d & Pub’d 11 August 2009)