 |
 |
Dear all If it is at all useful to you, I would be very interested in publishing in A&G a speculative article about what new science such a Europe-wide BB array (or, additionally or alternatively, a deep ocean network) could deliver. I think it would be a very appropriate place to make the comparison with astronomical proposals – in cost, scientific potential and benefits to UK industry – and would draw attention to the idea and the value of UK involvement. Do please get in touch, if anyone would be prepared to draw material together, I think it could be a useful bit of advocacy for solid earth geophysics. Just a thought Sue Dr S Bowler, Editor A&G, the magazine of the RAS School of Physics and Astronomy University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT UK [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> On 19 Jun 2013, at 13:05, FOULGER G.R. wrote: On 18 Jun 2013, at 17:24, Alan Jones wrote: Dear Gillian and all, Although our original EuroArray proposal mimicked this footprinting aspect of USArray, with 6 footprints across Europe, having since discussed this with many seismologists, there is a lot of merit in long term (>5 years) data acquisition across the whole of Europe simultaneously. Some techniques require a lot of events across all back-azimuths to reliably identify seismic structure and features, such as applying SKS. Far too often for too many arrays, like the SASE one (Southern African Seismic Experiment), there are too few events in 1 or 2 years deployments (1 year on outer profiles, 2 years on inner profiles, on SASE) so that a single layer of anisotropy is acceptable at most stations. My student and I went through all the SASE data, and found one event from one station that belied that interpretation. I don't dispute this, but I think the USArray folks judged that they wouldn't get funding for 2000 permanent BB installations, so they had to leap frog. I suspect that we would not even get support for a leap frogging arrangement for Europe, but I might just be a gloomy old pessimist… Installing 2000 BB stations is a walk in the park compared with the challenge of getting every seismic prima donna in Europe to agree. Mind you, given the price tag numbers for the astronomy requirements, we could fund this out of pocket change. G. One failing in our EuroArray approach was not to appear to fully recognise (although we obviously knew it) that Europe is resplendent in seismic observatories, in contrast to the USA, so a EuroArray must be configured that complements existing seismic recording. Having said that, the other sensors that would be placed on the EuroArray infrastructure would have to then be installed at the observatories in order to get full coverage. Yes, as mentioned by Russ Evans, we have EPOS - European Plate Observing System. EPOS spun out of NERIES and EuroArray together, so to some extent there is something in place. But EPOS is for existing infrastructure, and does not include new infrastructure. What is being conceived here, as I understand it, is a proposal for new infrastructure. Alan On 18/06/2013 12:14, FOULGER G.R. wrote: USArray involves, of course, a set of BB stations that are progressively leap-frogged over one another. They are not all permanent. This would need real co-operation in Europe. Gillian On 18 Jun 2013, at 7:55, Sheila Peacock wrote: Dear All, I should be grateful for any geophysics suggestions for big science that could be passed on to the House of Lords consultation. My own thoughts include: 1. a EuroArray seismic array equivalent to the USArray, or better still, a EuroRussianArray; 2. An ability to do 3-D marine and land seismic acquisition, processing and visualisation for research purposes. I'm a seismologist, as you see, so I need input from specialists in other areas of geophysics. I'll pass any suggestions on to Robert Massey (Royal Astronomical Soc.) for inclusion in the response. Regards, Sheila Peacock, RAS Council member. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Lords inquiry into Scientific Infrastructure Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:57:38 +0100 From: Robert Massey <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> To: Andrew Norton <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Barry Parsons <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Charles Barclay <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, David Southwood <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Don Kurtz <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Geraint Jones <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Gillian Foulger <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Helen Fraser <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Ian Crawford <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, John Brown <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Lyndsay Fletcher <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Mandy Bailey <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Martin Barstow <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Mike Cruise <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Paul Murdin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Peter Coles <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Richard Davis <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Sarah Matthews <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Sheila Peacock <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Simon Mitton <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Steve Miller <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Yvonne Elsworth <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Dear All You may remember that I sent round a note about this and the two other consultations (on Scottish independence and on the EU) a couple of weeks ago. See http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/ScientificInfrastructure/CfEScientificInfrastructure.pdf There are some fairly general questions in the inquiry that are best suited to a joint response (in our case through the Science Council – I contributed to a round table discussion they organised last week) but it nonetheless seems appropriate to respond to some points in our own right. In particular, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the following question: “What substantial increases in scale would allow new areas or domains of science to be explored (analogous to Large Hadron Collider and Higgs boson)?” Would you mind sending suggestions through to allow me to collate them? The deadline for the inquiry is this Friday, so I’d need to see these by tomorrow to stand a reasonable chance of assembling a response. Many thanks and best wishes Robert Dr Robert Massey Deputy Executive Secretary Royal Astronomical Society www.ras.org.uk<http://www.ras.org.uk/> <http://www.ras.org.uk<http://www.ras.org.uk/>> Tel: +44 (0)20 7734 3307 / 4582 x214 Mob: +44 (0)794 124 8035 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. G. R. Foulger, Durham University, Dept. Earth Sciences (Room 319), Science Labs, South Rd., Durham, DH1 3LE, U.K. Editor, Earth-Science Reviews tel: (0191) 334 2314 or (0191) 386 4533 fax: (0191) 334 2301 email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://www.dur.ac.uk/g.r.foulger Do plumes exist? Please visit: http://www.mantleplumes.org/ Plates vs Plumes: A Geological Controversy<http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405161485.html> by Gillian R. Foulger ISBN: 978-1-4051-6148-0, 352 pages, 2010, Wiley-Blackwell ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Professor Alan G. Jones, MRIA Senior Professor and Head of Geophysics Director, Irish Geoscience Graduate Programme (IGGP) School of Cosmic Physics Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies 5 Merrion Square, Dublin 2, Ireland Direct: +353-1-653-5147 x224 Secretary: +353-1-653-5147 x200 Reception: +353-1-662-1333 Fax: +353-1-443-0575 Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Secretary: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Web: http://homepages.dias.ie/~ajones CHIGI: http://www.chigi.ie<http://www.chigi.ie/> IGGP: http://www.iggp.ie<http://www.iggp.ie/> MTNet: http://www.mtnet.info<http://www.mtnet.info/> IRETHERM: http://www.iretherm.ie<http://www.iretherm.ie/> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. G. R. Foulger, Durham University, Dept. Earth Sciences (Room 319), Science Labs, South Rd., Durham, DH1 3LE, U.K. Editor, Earth-Science Reviews tel: (0191) 334 2314 or (0191) 386 4533 fax: (0191) 334 2301 email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://www.dur.ac.uk/g.r.foulger Do plumes exist? Please visit: http://www.mantleplumes.org/ Plates vs Plumes: A Geological Controversy<http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405161485.html> by Gillian R. Foulger ISBN: 978-1-4051-6148-0, 352 pages, 2010, Wiley-Blackwell ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------