Letters 2008

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

1. Earth expansion founders on its own shoal.
2. Foster, S. 2008 A bigger Earth. Geoscientist, 18 (9): 3.
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.

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 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).
   

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 www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange).

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. 

References
 

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.