RE: paleonet AGI Report

[Peter Paul Smolka <smolka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Michael Simmons wrote:

> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:05:13 -0000
> From: Michael Simmons <mike.simmons@neftex.com>
> Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: paleonet AGI Report
>
> Prof Hottinger raises important issues in his note, an important one
> being that Palaeontology is not alone in suffering from crises in
> funding/staffing/appreciation.These are issues generally faced in the
> whole of Earth Science and I do not think palaeontologists should
> consider themselves a special case.
>
> Both academia and industry, as businesses, suffer from short-termism at
> the moment. University Earth Science departments (at least in the UK)

Synopsis:

When have we accomplished our work?

Part of my own to do list (e.g. no empty thoughts).
(e.g. there are also some other parts beyond paleoclimatology).

(can be extended).

Suggestions.

End of synopsis.

To answer to the first part of above point:

If success is measured in terms of raised funds and not solved
questions the score often is low.

If success is measured in terms of "the average salary Graduated
Geologists get in the first two years after diploma" then for
example a high number of PhD students are even negative (such terms,
more sophisticated than sketched here, exist).

And so forth.

All of us, including me, can ask us: For which result would we
spend own money, e.g. where would we accept a reduced personal salary,
if we get by this the result?

I regard important questions (and realistical ways to achieve them)
in the following areas. I do NOT want to offend anybody. The list
is only my own. The omission of important aspects means only that
I do not work on them (for example because others do it).

So:

1) Climate safety analysis.

We are safe, also in our own economic plannings, if we either KNOW
how climate, wind speeds and directions, precipitations are in
5, 10, 15, 20 and more years or if we know corridor and properties
of events to happen.

For this: Synopses of past possible warmer climates (e.g.
Quaternary and Neogene).

Target: If the "worst" / "best" happens, how does it look like
(precipitation, draughts, temperatures, winds etc.

Method: (2 my and older): Temperatures from ODP cores (fauna/flora).
Worldwide stratigraphy. Driving an atmospheric general circulation
model with this.

Interim results: http://joiscience.org/greatesthits2/pdfs/smolka.pdf

Improvables:

More data, particularly in the high latitudes.

Other biota (transfer of methods also to diatoms, radiolaria).

Method works also for Quaternary.

Faster climate model.

Frontier today:

1000-1500 years transiently (atmosphere, ocean, land, ice).

Needed: 400 000 ka, better more.

Method: Speeding the model up, keeping the physics as they are.
(Tedious but necessary).

Large groups make no sense. Best progress-booster: Good mood (where to
do what).

Decision path:

If we can reproduce the Vostok curve: Accomplished.

Then final test with the last 3 Ma on faster computer.

Possible problem: Pleistocene appears possible (with alkalinity
changes). Why change to Holocene? (topic of special issue of GPC
in preparation).

If boundary condition changed. Which?

Importance: Driving atmosphere with warm oceans can cause adverse
conditions on continents (existing model result).

Other groups: High res regional models (e.g. no criticism, but
different threads of the topic).

Fund potential: None, as the mood is the driving force, not the size
of the group (e.g. good ideas, not as much PhD students as possible).

Side aspect: Paleontology: Needed: Fossil census, quantitatively
or semi-quantitatively for above biota (also discussed on this
list as need in the Gulf of Mexico).

Status: Work in progress.

Problem: People do not exist in copy.

2) Solution (after above is done, already discussed):

Linking a question of medicine with paleontology. Again here:
Good ideas needed, not highest funds.

Needed: Non destructive high res analysis of DSDP/ODP/IODP cores.
Automatic fossil detection (e.g. details of single cells).

In medicine: Non destructive analysis of single cells, such as
squeezed nerve cells of the back bone, flooded nerve cells
after bleeding etc.

Preparative works (several devices in Muenster): X-Ray or Magnetic
Tomography.

Limit: Density of spider-net (ray-paths).

Patenting for higher density started.

Related (extremely compact, see parts of "artificial seismograms"):

Reducing algorithmically all effects that modify wave-forms
(including generating new waves). As source and receiver are known:
Much work.

Result step 1: Better voxel files.

Status: Head of respective institute was quite open-minded, but said:
"How many PhD students do we get from that".

Current status (my own): Getting the money to pay in the desired
currency.

That is: Projects in applied paleoclimatology submitted to banks.

(e.g. for the test cases information about "what is measured"
is needed, such as data on a back-bone).

Benefits (also mentioned by other physicians: If single cells
can be resolved at "human diameter" single non-detectable
cells can be highlighted and offered for human analysis).

Step 2:
Fossil detection:

Own software for form-recognition, detection of egdes in point
clusters etc. exists. Identification of holotypes, application.

Challenging but not impossible.

Currently the specialists for holotype identification (e.g. in
the voxel sense) exist.

Thus in 3D automated species recognition is regarded as possible.

If it works: (a) medicine and (b) measurement container in ODP or
on drillsites (such as from the mud).

Fund potential: Right now: None. A large group is an obstacle for
this. People from related institutes (such as geophysics) are needed.
(therefore also my hesitance to change the institute as a
multidisciplibe infrastructure is the key, not a research center
with much PhD students but, necessarily, a focus on a subset of
key-fields)

Equipment: A PC, compilers, ftp connection, CD and DVD burner.

If automated fossil lists will exist: Application of my paleotemperature
algorithms.

Also related: Improvement of worldwide stratigraphy with range-chart
(evolutionary first appearance, wherever it is eFAD, evolutionary
last appearance, eLAD, wherever it is) of all biota.

E.g. considerable improvement of existing algorithm

Potentially: Calibrating with Sr-Isotope curve (Neogene).
(suspected shortcut).

If (1) and (2) exist on CDs / DVDs: Accomplished.

Related: In case of efficient 3D detection algorithms:
Also for automated safety technology (e.g. entering other
countries without endangering the life of soldiers or violating
the visa-regulations of the visited country, formulated as polite
as possible).

Thus also service for safety is possible.

Detecting single cells (diatoms), modified cells (squeezed nerves
in the back, juvenile forams), moving cells (such as components
of the immune system) and in the future potentially humans
is a safety-increasing solution (time horizon for the last
point: beyond 20 years).

Related, as said: PC, data, internet, references (literature),
symbol-manipulation software (for frightening formulas): All items
that do not need funds in above terms, but good ideas.

That is (the initial question): There is much to do and realistical
perspectives to achieve it.

3) Related to (1).

Timescales and magnitudes ("short and pronounced") of temperature
fluctuations are known.

Until (1) is solved: We must avoid any potential human interaction
with the climate system until we know definitely it is harmless.

Thus:

Increasing the cost-related efficiency of solar cells as applied
paleoclimatology. Patenting in progress. Prototype hopefully soon.
If it works: Also for fund raising.

Nature: "Too specific for a broad audience". Science: Related.

Financing: All privately. Research programs are normally PhD
and postdoc programs. What I want is not much PhDs but a good device.

4) Related to (1):

Hydrogen storage in solids (Geology).

Existing state: At low pressures and high temperatures (e.g. 2.5 bar
and 20 or 25 deg C (not K) the 2,5 liquid equivalent can be stored
in the crystal structure of suitable metals.

Obstacle: Shape of the loading/unloading curves.

Geological processes exist (the material afterwards decays) that
reach 250,000 bar for a short time - even without a gaseous phase
involved (energy efficiency). The processes up to now are not desired.
They are regarded as obstacle (e.g. research is done to prevent them).

Status: Director of related inst. asked.

Answer: Good idea. How many PhD students do I get from that?

My idea around 1990: I pay him the consumables (laboratory and
laboratory labor); the topic itsself is interesting enough.

(e.g.: At that time we sold geological software for fund-raising.
After this was not desired any-more (e.g. I was told to run it
as external business and not for progress) I stopped it.

Solution: Above applied paleoclimatology until budget exist
to pay in the desired currency (e.g. being able to pay him 2-3
PhDs to do "other works" to get the core work done).

Benefits: Safe flying, safer cars, reduced climate change, storage
of energy (and even, in the long-range, transport of the hydrogen
as "powder" with the existing infrastructure such as tankers).

As neither liquid hydrogen nor high pressure involved: Safer than
many think.

But again: NOT doing anything to do it externally as spin off
but to support progress.

Why not done until now: People working in above field have not
studied geology and vv.

What counts: The solution, the series of experiments. NOT the
research program with PhDs involved. PhD theses must follow
certain guidelines. Here it must be possible to abandon a thread
based on interim results without "smashing a PhD thesis".

5) After (1) is done, also 1-2 persons in the beginning.

Existing:

Simulation and predicting folds, faults and fractures exists in
technology since a long time. Thus, in principle, the question
is solved.

In technology however: Material distribution is known such as:

Aluminium against air (wing construction also as part of applied
paleoclimatology).

Data densities of 5 mm in each direction are no problem. Also not
with existing (tested) software.

Obstacle: Documentation partially in Tensor notation (not
unsormountable but hesitance of geologists can be understood).

In Geology:

Material-distribution at above scale must either be known (impossible)
or simulated according to existing boundaries, known processes etc.
around above software (e.g. own software around above system).
Applies also to boundary conditions.

Discussed in 1998 with a person (developer) from a large research
center (e.g. linking their and our software).

Related: Remesh every time-step (new fractures).

Related: Change of properties every time-step (mineralogical qu.).

Advantage: Simple test case exist to "see how far one can come".

Test measure: If the known faults / fractures of the past
century (in the test area) are met correctly: Good interim solution.

Not much data and persons needed (1-2). Thus: No fund potential.

Benefits: For the target region where a test appears as challenging
but feasible, considerably.

If the software separates from the millions of possibilities
10-20 cases to be sorted out by drilling (e.g. which of the solutions
applies) it is quite a great progress.

Status here: Done if funds from applied paleoclimatology come.

As research program: High risk until first tests are done.


Gashydrates
(not addressed by me):

Reasons:

1) As energy source: As negative as comparable as they will be
finally dumped in the atmosphere.

2) As energy source: First a budget calculation that can be presented
at banks, even if the enegery price would be twice as high as now.
(e.g. above danger (1) does not justify the efforts compared to
solar).

3) As danger (e.g. releases as source for climate changes).

I think not. Reason: In times of low stands of sea-level the
boundary in the state-digram shifts to realease, thus having
the potential to end an glaciation.

In times of warm climate, high stand, gas hydrate formation is supported
(e.g. higher pressure).

Such thought patterns can also be applied to other fields.

Thus to conclude this:

1) In case of closed institutes I would present the situation as:

a) What are worldwide important questions?
b) Where are we with respect to these questions?
c) What are the next steps to solve them?
d) Can we do this on our own?
   If not:
      Are we able to send e-mails to others for data and related?
      (e.g. without the need to create a new research center)
e) When is the respective question solved.

2) In the past "a large infrastructure" was needed.

When transferring an atmospheric general circulation model in 1998
from Cray to PC (Windows) I was for example critized harshly in
the sense: "How can you think about this as we are no DKRZ"
(Germanies large climate research center). I replied referring to
facts and data.

Related thinking I observed quite often.

This is fortunately no longer necessary any more as for example
the (a) European Union has usable large infrastructure centers
and (b) samples must fly (such as to service laboratories) not
persons (who suffer from jetlag).

Administrative officers  should thus be encouraged to think in these
terms as, in contrast to the past, technology got smaller, large
"apparatuses" are no longer the pre-requisite for progress
and the measurement in funds being attracted (and not questions
that are solved) is not always the best way.

Related however: Recently in Germany a Federal minister said that
with priorities those technologies should be supported that generate
jobs.

Related:
Any new method either generates something new (normally with
less people) or enables us to do more with less people.

Thus, progress is the holiday-generation method (a high employment
means salaries like in Afghanistan).
Above-mentioned minister was in the public thinking in terms of the
past.

Up to now, incoporating companies as spin-offs of universities
is regarded as something desirable.

I think that in the future universities should, as was done with
software from 1986-1998 here (tested example), do it
THEMSELVES.
(without VC, we had been 10 times more expensive than the next
competitor, so it was definitely(!) no price-dumping).

As I regarded running a company without contributing to progress
as a public presentation of failure, I stopped above intentionally
(to stop the "forcing") loosing also people this way (1996ff).

The principle itsself is however proven.

For applied paleoclimatology co-workers can do the routine work.

I am aware that bank-compatible thinking is for some of us
unusual. In principle however a cash-flow analysis is an equilibrium
calculation. The only difference is that people from banks regard
accumulating money as prime target while we think of the progress to
be realized with it.

I must admit that when suggesting to think this way I received
criticism. I do however think that otherwise ideas of
"structuring the European research area" are more important than
progress.

Thus:

I propose, also with other questions, to think related and present
the own concepts as such. This applies particularly to those of us,
that are formally entitled to do this.

*************************************

As for Basel also other sciences such as Astronomy had been mentioned:

Astronomy:

I understand parts of astronomical skills such that by analyzing
spectra from most remote galaxies, e.g. "greeting each photon
personally" quite detailed results are possible.

When going to theoretical physics some years ago (for the practical
courses I had no time): I learned that also organic matter emits
photons (e.g. we). The quantities are very small.

Applying above to medicine and detecting chemical changes / potentially
modified cells before large quantities exist, might be an idea.

NOT as PhD program, but as service for funds, potentially
endoscopically.

With small quantities of light they are quite familiar.

If by doing this they keep themselves alive: The better.

Above mentioned Geological Software was by the way paleoclimatology
software that got another user-interface and was applied to
hydrology and mining (I was of course very frustrated that others
got money to write papers while I had to solve additional
problems because, as it was presented to me as such "the Kiel people
block everything" (e.g. friends in above city addressed at that time
as being "dangerous").

If I see what IBM announces for data-mining and how far (e.g. better)
we are in geology/paleontology (pre-steps for
paleotemperatures) we should not be shy to receive money.

To avoid a misunderstanding: This astronomical thread is NOT part
of my workplan. It is however an example of totally different
fields that can get a better basis.

Thus I think that we (all of us) can think about our work as such
(above a-e).

I do not want to compare myself with any well-known person.

In the years 1995ff "privatization" (which is much much more expensive
than keeping things publically, numbers can be given) was announced
as "the only way that is possible".

Unwanted people like Bin Laden, adopted this, e.g. nobody needs
permission for anything, not even for murdering people.

For good causes, e.g. scientific progress, we can think in the same
way as here we have proven the feasibility with above-mentioned
software 1986ff (e.g. whatever the Kiel people blocked, as was said,
we did our things withiut being a research center).

Many other fields can thus be progress-optimized independent
of views of those administrative officers who regard "structures"
(existence of Basel y/n) as more important than progress.

Reasons to "get up each day" (e.g. where progress can be achieved)
exist more than can be counted.

Best regards, Peter

**********************************************************************
Dr. Peter P. Smolka
University Muenster
Geological Institute
Corrensstr. 24
D-48149 Muenster

Tel.: +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
Fax:  +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de
**********************************************************************