The 1987 meeting of Sigma Xi was held on 16-19 October, at the
Hotel Queen Mary, Long Beach CA.
The meeting opened on Friday evening, 16 October, with the first
General Assembly of Delegates. At that Assembly, the Delegates were
welcomed, and a several brief reports were made. After the General
Assembly, the first Regional Assembly was convened. I met with the
delegates from the Mid-Atlantic Region. The primary purpose of that
meeting was to introduce ourselves to each other and to explore the
opportunity for the association of nearby chapters and clubs into
consortia. I discussed, with the delegate from the University of
Scranton Club, the possibility of forming a consortium with their
group.
The main program was held on Saturday, 17 October. The topic was "The
International Geosphere-Biosphere Program". Dr. K. Timmerhaus (Sigma
Xi President) and Dr. T. Malone (Sigma Xi President-elect) provided
introductory remarks.
The first talk was "The International Geosphere-Biosphere Program: A
Study in Earth System Sciences" by Dr. F. Bretherton (National Center
for Atmospheric Research). He noted that concentrations of both
carbon dioxide and methane have increased in the atmosphere over the
past 25 years. For carbon dioxide, annual fluctuations have been
observed, and are due to differences between summer and winter rates
of photosynthesis. However, the overall increase is due to
anthropomorphic causes - primarily burning fossil fuels. If carbon
dioxide doubles in the next 50 years, as predicted, the mean global
temperature will rise 2-3oC. However, the warming will not
be uniform over the earth's surface. Specifically, the warming will
be greatest in the higher latitudes. It is thought that the
difference between present and the predicted future climate will be
the same as that which occurred during the ice age and today's.
What might the world be like 50 years from now, if carbon dioxide
concentrations double? During August in New York City every day will
be 90oF with 95% relative humidity. In Alaska, fish
populations will be booming, as will timber in the Pacific northwest.
In mid-America, we will see a return to the "dust-bowl" conditions,
especially because the primary aquifer will be gone. Canada and
Siberia will become very productive and people will migrate there. A
new international cartel will be created of those countries; they
hold the genetic resources for producing most of the grain.
This is a likely outcome, but it is by no means 100% definite. To
arrive at these predictions, the global system was examined and
models were created with various inputs and outcomes. The shortcoming
of the models, however, is that our understanding of the systems is
poor. More study of the earth as a system is needed to improve the
predictive capability of the models.
As mentioned, atmospheric methane is also increasing. Like carbon
dioxide, methane causes a greenhouse effect. Why is methane
increasing? We don't know. Possible sources of methane are cow
belches, termite mounds, rice paddies, and changes in
oxidation-reduction pattern of carbon dioxide due to air pollution.
More study is needed on this, however.
To examine such problems we need an interdisciplinary science. Such
science should supplement and not replace the types of research being
done at present.
When getting such large scale research started, we must consider both
spatial and temporal aspects. We see the individual pieces, but
should also see how they interconnect. A general model of the earth's
system should be constructed including both its physical attributes
and biogeochemical cycles. To put together such a model we need to
have a broad intellectual base.
The ice ages appear to have been due to changes in solar radiation
caused by changes in the earth's orbit. Changes in the atmospheric
carbon dioxide may have also played a role. However, the effect of
carbon dioxide is influenced by ocean circulation, since the ocean
water can store vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Thus, to fully
understand how long-term climate change is triggered, it is important
to consider many different (possibly interrelated) phenomena.
Research on the earth as a system will need to be both very large
scale and long-term. We will need to take measurements on a global
basis and then construct models that have predictive power. It is
also necessary that the huge amounts of data already collected be
incorporated.
One difficulty with using past and current data is that
instrumentation is occasionally not well calibrated. For example,
instruments on satellites show that solar irradiance fluctuates, and
actually decreased, over the past eight years. However, the
difference in the readings between two different light sensors on two
different satellites is quite large. Thus any change when analyzing
data from those two satellites may be an artifact.
Other efforts to gain an understanding of global conditions will
focus on cloud cover, sea-surface topography, vegetation and
volcanoes.
Dr. Bretherton concluded that the global science will need
unprecedented international cooperation. There will also need to be a
good integration of "big science" and "little science".
The second talk was "The Potential of Ice Cores for Paleoclimate
Reconstruction" by Dr. E. Mosley-Thompson (Ohio State University).
Her perspective was from that of an individual researcher trying to
learn about the global system.
Dr. Moseley-Thompson noted that ice sheets in glaciers accumulate
through time. By digging into such sheets, one can examine ice
deposited in the past. Typically, the deposits form bands, similar to
annual rings in trees. It is therefore possible to determine the
exact age of the ice. Ice cores taken from polar areas can hold a
longer history than those taken from non-polar areas. Cores collected
in Antarctica, Greenland and the Soviet Union provide 200,000 years
of data.
In studies done in the Andes Mountains, ice accumulates at a rate of
1 m per year. For each year, it is possible to find a dust layer
containing particles from deserts, the ocean, and volcanoes, all
preserved as a natural archive. It is possible to compare cores taken
from different sites and compare the dust particles. Typically such
cores match closely.
Ice also traps tiny bubbles of air. When the concentration of carbon
dioxide is examined in those bubbles, it is possible to see that
levels were quite low until recently, reinforcing other studies done
elsewhere.
The last 10,000 years have been quite warm, compared to the period
before that - corresponding to the Wisconsin glaciation. During the
glaciation, more dust lain down each year than during the
post-glacial period. The transition between the glacial and
post-glacial periods appears very abrupt, less than 100 years.
Data from the ice cores also point to a "little ice age" between
1500-1850 A.D. Strata from that time have higher amounts of dust
accumulation than those before or after. That pattern holds for ice
cores collected in different parts of the world.
Research on the ice cores continues. Presently there is a cooperative
agreement with China, which receives some of the cores.
The third talk, "Preliminary Plans of the Special Committee on the
International Geosphere-Biosphere Program of the International
Council of Scientific Unions" was presented by Dr. T. Rosswall
(University of Linkoping, Sweden).
Dr. Rosswall stated that a timetable has been established for the
program: 1986-1990 will be the planning phase, 1990-2000 will be the
implementation phase, and 2000-2005 will be the synthesis. For the
project to be successful, we need an interdisciplinary approach.
Earlier this year there was an organizational meeting. It was decided
at that time that the project should try to: (1) document global
change, (2) observe and understand forcing functions (atmospheric
carbon dioxde and freon), (3) understand transient (rare) events, and
(4) understand the factors that affect the availability of renewable
and unrenewable resources.
The project will be coordinated by several panels, each with a
different focus. At present these include: terrestrial biosphere -
atmospheric chemistry interaction, marine biosphere - atmospheric
chemistry interaction, biospheric aspects of hydrological cycles, and
effects of any climatic change on ecosystems. These will not cover
all aspects of interest, but will cover the key areas.
There will also be four working groups: global geosphere-biosphere
modeling, data and information systems (to coordinate efforts of
different countries), techniques for extracting environmental data of
the past, and geosphere-biosphere observatories.
Why is this effort coming about now? There are several reasons.
First, we have global changes that have been caused by humans.
Second, we need to have programs where different disciplines can join
together. Third, there have been advancements in our ability to
gather appropriate data, especially from space. Fourth, great strides
have been made in the development of computerized global models.
Evapotranspiration is a very important part of the hydrologic cycle.
Currently many acres of tropical rainforest are being converted into
grassland, especially in Amazonia. The effect that such a change will
have on weather patterns there is unknown. Similarly, in the Sahel
the rainforest has been cut down, with the effects being unknown.
Rainfall has been less there, though. More study is critically
needed.
In our analysis, it is important to look transpiration as it occurs
at all hierarchical levels - from individual plant to community to
landscape to global. This is very challenging as the question of
scale is raised. This is a new way of looking at things.
The link between the biosphere and the atmosphere is worth examining
in detail. Besides carbon dioxide, there are trace gasses that cause
the greenhouse effect, including methane, nitrous oxide
(N2O), chloroflorocarbons and ozone. We can see an
increase in the concentration of methane over time, correlating with
the rise in the human population. We do not know what has caused the
increase, however.
It is important to have good baseline information and long term
studies so that natural inputs into the atmosphere can be discerned
from human inputs.
The increase of those gasses into the atmosphere has led to an
increase in the global temperature. This, in turn, has led to a rise
in the sea level caused by the melting of the polar ice caps.
The chemistry of nitrous oxide is interesting. At first it was
thought that it was produced by microbes from NO2. We now
know that its production is more complex, involving both oxidative
and reductive processes.
Considerable nitrous oxide is produced in the anaerobic center of
soil aggregates (crumbs). This, in turn, is affected by the amount of
moisture in the soil. To best understand this, though, we need to
examine the processes of denitrification and mineral leaching in the
soils. The best type of study will examine patterns at several
levels: individual crumb, agricultural field, watershed, region, and
ultimately the biosphere.
A problem for the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP) is
that the efforts of scientists in many different disciplines must be
coordinated. We also must be able to recruit new scientists that have
an interdisciplinary perspective.
The fourth talk "The Challenge of Interdisciplinary Science in a
Disciplinary Environment" was presented by Dr. M. McElroy
(Harvard).
He posed the question "How do we handle interdisciplinarity in
institutions that are set up along disciplinary lines?"
To answer this, one can examine issues related to atmospheric ozone.
We live in a changing world; a fact much appreciated by atmospheric
chemists. There is an increase in the concentration of
chloroflorocarbons (CFC's), but the changes are really quite
slow.
About fifteen years ago, people started to become concerned about the
amount of ozone in the atmosphere. When ozone is depleted, there is
an increase in the amount of ultraviolet light. Initially,
high-flying aircraft were thought to be responsible for causing
destruction of the ozone.
Recently, there has been intense scrutiny of depletion of ozone over
the Antarctic. Until a few years ago, we knew nothing about it. In
the 1970's, scientists discovered that the amount of ozone there was
decreasing. It used to be 300 units, now it is 130.
If we look at the system in more detail, we see that there is a polar
vortex, or pool of very stable air, over the Antarctic. It is formed
and survives during the winter. The chemistry there is different and
was unknown to atmospheric scientists. In the cold arctic atmosphere,
ice forms that contain nitrates. The ice falls from the stratosphere,
causing those nitrates to be removed. The crystals also contain
hydrochloric acid. The chlorine is converted to free Cl radicals.
In 1987 there was an expedition of scientists from several nations to
the Antarctic to examine the phenomenon. Many studies were done
aboard DC-10 and U-2 aircraft from Chile. They flew into the
stratosphere, 22 km above the earth's surface. Conditions there were
dangerous and harsh, but good data were obtained.
The studies revealed that as the concentration of chloride radicals
increased, ozone was depleted. The radicals were traced to CFC's
generated by humans.
Why was there a sharp onset of the problem in the 1970's? Apparently
it was due to the amount chlorine in the atmosphere exceeding a
certain threshold level.
The researchers further concluded that, even if there is no
additional input of chlorine into the atmosphere, the Antarctic hole
in the ozone will still form for the next 75 years. This will lead to
a 10 to 30-fold increase in the amount of ultraviolet light over a
few hundred years.
What will happen to phytoplankton in the ocean there? They might
photosynthesize at a lower rate, causing effects down the food chain.
It might also lead to an increase in the concentration in carbon
dioxide within the ocean, because it is not being used by the
phytoplankton. This, in turn, will lead to a greater greenhouse
effect.
How is one university handling investigations into this problem?
Harvard is involved in this. They are encouraging their scientists to
have a depth of knowledge in several fields. Harvard brought together
scientists from different disciplines into a department of Earth and
Planetary Sciences. Often, it is difficult to form such
multidisciplinary groups in large schools. Clearly there is a great
opportunity for smaller schools to take the lead in this.
Recent limits on CFC production, agreed to at the Montreal
conference, will have little effect on antarctic ozone.
We are now looking for early signs of ozone depletion over the
arctic. If such effects are observed, an effect should also be
observed at mid-latitudes.
The fifth talk "Human Response to Global Change" was presented by Dr.
I. Burton (Director, International Federation of Institutes of
Advanced Study, Toronto). He examined the implication of this project
for the social sciences, and how society will deal with global
change.
He noted that in psychology and sociology there is poor collaboration
between scientists in different countries.
Who would want to study global societal response? It is a huge task
with a high liklihood for failure. Very young scientists might want
to become involved because they are idealistic, but they often become
discouraged by their older colleagues. Senior academicians might also
want to tackle the problem because they do not have to worry about
tenure; they can afford to take on risky research. We need to
interest those social scientists who are in the middle of their
career.
Early human concerns centered on the availability of enough food.
That gave way to concerns about having enough energy. In the past
20-30 years, humans became increasingly concerned about the effects
of pollution. Recently, we are concerned about the genetic diversity
and species preservation.
Several options exist to determining society's response to
environmental change. One is to study the environment, then to
propose actions. We could study response to past environmental
change. Much knowledge already exists.
A large segment of the population is not convinced that any change in
environment is occurring. Even if all were convinced, what would be
the reaction? There is a need for agreement and fairness (but what is
fairness?).
The International Geosphere-Biosphere Program should be broadened to
include social scientists, but many natural scientists resist that.
There should be a new committee: "Human Response to Global Change" to
cooperate with IGBP. The view should be both interdisciplinary and
international.
Human systems are not at equilibrium. Newtonian, mechanististic
explanations should be avoided. Model building in social sciences are
often not valid, but if carefully constructed, models may provide
valuable insight.
The effects of population density on human response are not
clear-cut; perhaps some higher-density areas would do better than
those with lower population densities. Poorer societies will probably
suffer more when the climate changes.
There should be an ongoing exchange between social scientists and
natural scientists, such as relating findings from remote sensing to
societal issues.
A second approach would be for social scientists to set their own
agenda. Look at risk assessment, analysis of complex systems, needs
of most vulnerable communities and nations, and the global
environmental history.
What are the major issues of global change?
Presently, there are 5 billion people on the earth. In the next
generation, we expect to have another 5 billion. There is no way to
escape that increase. Of the people now alive, 2 billion live in
poverty. To improve their situation, we need to have a massive
expansion of the world economy.
Turn to the national debt. There are great problems there. Other
problems abound as well. Universities now lack some of the basic
equipment that they had ten years ago. Renewable resources are being
expended faster than the population is increasing. Global military
spending is now very high. It is wasteful, and leads to more poverty.
Indeed, military spending is now rising faster than general economic
growth.
There are encouraging events, however. The recent ozone agreements,
reforms of the world bank, disarmament agreements, and IGBP.
Much needs to be done, however.
The sixth, and last talk, "The National Science Foundation (NSF)
Global Geosciences Program" was presented by Dr. R. Corell (NSF).
He noted that several agencies are involved with doing global
research, including NASA, DOE, NOAA, and others. What is NSF's
role?
NSF provides funding for research in academia. Their mission is one
of providing basic support. The agency sees itself as being
responsible for the health of various disciplines. Over 60% of the
funding for environmental science projects comes from NSF.
We now know that global change is occurring. Sciences are maturing.
Previously, the focus was regional. Now, we must look at larger
scales. There needs to be more cooperation between scientists and
agencies.
In the 1940's and 1950's studies were typically on systematics. In
the 1960's, processes were examined. In the 1970's and 1980's
multidisciplinary studies emerged. In the 1990's it is expected that
global studies will be a primary emphasis.
The tools that we will use to conduct these studies will include
satellites, super-computers and assorted new methodologies. We can do
it because society now cares. All of these factors are now
converging.
The precursor to IGBP is the Global Geosciences Program, which
started in 1987 and is projected to continue through at least 1988.
Its goal is to understand the earth system with emphasis on being
able to predict future events.
The Global Geosciences Program includes several different elements:
Global Geotropospheric Chemistry, World Ocean Circulation Experiment
(WOCE), Tropical Oceans and Global Atmosphere (TOGA), Global Ocean
Flux Study, Global Ecosystem Dynamics, Ridge Crest Processes, Solid
Earth Dynamics, Paleoclimates from Ice Sheets, and Coupling,
Energetics & Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions.
The outlook for these projects is 5-10 years. Often it is difficult
to plan science, however.
WOCE will consider the oceans as three-dimensional entities, to
better characterize ocean behavior, especially as it relates to
climate.
In the domain of atmospheric science, the Global Tropospheric
Chemistry Program will be very important. It will examine the upper
atmosphere and the influence of solar radiation. NASA will provide
muich assistance to that project.
Solid Earth Studies will seek to understand the earth's deep
structure. One objective will be to provide a "CAT scan" of the
earth. It will also precisely resolve the status of the sea level and
will look into global tectonics.
One expected outcome of the project is that it will enable us to
integrate many different kinds of studies in ways that have never
been done before. IGBP should also enable us to have truly
international science.
In terms of budgeting, it is expected that funding for science will
double during the period. The funding should maintain and facilitate
growth for core science. It should also enable new ideas to flourish,
especially those that are cross-disciplinary, and should fund science
and technology centers. Lastly, the funding should be used to improve
science education, from kindergarten through the post-doctoral
level.
Studies of global change will have the following attributes: they
will be intellectually challenging, they will demand much from
institutions, they will be socio-politically explosive, and they will
be financially restrictive.
The success of these studies will require creative, broad-based
thought, candor, open and direct interaction, and more trust and
cooperation. In essence, we will need a new mind set.
Dr. Corell finished by stating that he would like to meet with
academicians to discuss how this program might affect them, and how
they might serve the program.
The annual banquet was held on the evening of 17 October. After the
meal, the 1987 Proctor Prize for scientific achievement was presented
to Dr. J. Van Allen (Iowa), who then gave a presentation on his
work.
On Sunday, 18 October, Sigma Xi conducted several workshops. These
focused on Science and Mathematics Education, Membership, and New
Officers. An enjoyable "Town Meeting on the Public Understanding of
Science" was held after the workshops ended. In that session, the
organizers presented a number of resolutions pertaining to the
relationship between science and the public, and those in the
audience were encourage to speak for or against each resolution. The
resolutions were then voted up or down, in a non-binding referendum.
The debate was often very lively, with many interesting points being
made.
On Sunday evening, Mr. William Carey (Carnegie Corporation) presented
a lecture entitled "Scientists and Sandboxes: Regions of the Mind".
This was followed by the second General Assembly of Delegates. At
that time, Mr. S. Udall, Ms. M. Press, and Ms. C. Russell were
intiated as honorary members. After the main assembly, the delegates
then attended a second Regional Assembly.
On Monday, 19 October, the third Regional Assembly of delegates was
held. At that session, officers for the region were elected. The
third General Assembly of Delegates was then convened to vote on the
dues structure, proposed constitutional changes and motions that were
previously made concerning the status of two chapters.
The meeting adjourned following that Assembly.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth M. Klemow, Ph.D
President, Wilkes College Sigma Xi Club
13 January 1988