On batteries and aeroplanes

Earlier this week I wrote about space-crafts with thermostatic skins, implying this kind of technology could prove to be useful for temperature control in low-power autonomous seismic stations in the Antarctic. Here is another technological achievement that may be of some use.

The BBC reported over the weekend that a UK-built solar-powered and unmanned plane, the Zephyr-6, had stayed aloft for more than three days, running though the night on batteries it had recharged during the day.

The Zephyr weighs 30kg and flies at an altitude of over 60,000 feet. Its power derives from solar power generated by paper-thin amorphous silicon solar arrays glued over the aircraft's wings. This power is stored in a new type of lithium-sulphur battery.

A lot of effort has gone into power storage and light-weighting the systems. Lithium sulphur is more than double the energy density of the best alternative technology which is lithium polymer batteries. Mr Kelleher, Qinetiq (UK defense and research firm)

These batteries are made by the Sion Corporation:

The custom built Li-S battery pack was designed and assembled by SION Power and consisted of 576 cells built into a battery configuration of 12 cells in series and 48 in parallel. The battery utilized SION’s unique, high specific energy Li-S cells (350 Wh/kg). At ~10 kg, the Li-S battery pack was carefully engineered to minimize total pack weight.
In addition to providing flight power, the battery pack supplied power to a special
internal pack heating system to maintain the batteries at 0oC throughout the cold nights. Sion press release.

The Sion battery data-sheet is available here: sion_product_spec.pdf.

The usefulness of this kind of battery for our stations in Antarctica would depend on its adaptability to long-duration low-power applications, and on its performance at low temperatures. Yet another thing to look into this fall!

Funky thermostat film for spacecrafts

You may remember that keeping our antarctic instrumentation at a constant and not-too low operating temperatures is a major challenge. Some time ago I posted about the heating / insulation strategy we implemented in last year's prototype stations. I'm planning to write a short piece on how that strategy worked out in the next couple of weeks.

The subject of today's post is an innovation in thermostat technology that has just been presented at the 236th American Chemical Society' National Meeting in Philadelphia, and that was brought to my attention by the BBC News website.

Spacecraft have a serious problem with temperature regulation, as they operate in blazing sunlight, in the cold shadow of the Earth, or in even more extreme conditions closer or further away from the Sun. As operating conditions vary, so does the amount of heat generated by the onboard electronics.

For large spacecraft, [temperature control] is done with mechanical louvers—basically glorified window blinds—that open and close to allow in or reflect heat. But as satellites get smaller, these systems get too heavy and bulky. - Prasanna Chandrasekhar of Ashwin-Ushas, an American tehnology firm

Chadrasekhar and his team have developed a "skin" that can be placed on a spacecraft to actively control the amount of heat that it radiate by controlling its emissivity.

Polymers in the skin change their emissivity when electricity is applied to them, retaining heat in cold conditions and radiating it away in hot ones. That leads to an active temperature control that can be maintained with very little power.

The skin is just a few tenths of a millimetre thick, has been tested to withstand the rigours of the vacuum and temperature extremes of space, and can be bent and cut to fit craft of any shape without losing its properties.

Would such material be useful in Antarctic conditions, which are much less extreme than those experienced in outer space ? The answer will depend on the amount of energy required to power the emissivity-regulating skin.

Energy is a serious problem in Antarctica given the duration of the winter night. Should the new skin system be as low power and low-cost as announced at the conference, then its use in Antarctica may well be possible. We shall be keeping a lookout for updates on this product!

Japan earthquake : an early warning failure?

The earthquake that occurred last Friday June 13th in Eastern Honshu, Japan - a M6.8 event according to the USGS, a M7.0 event according to JMA - occurred in a relatively lightly populated area, and caused few fatalities. Most of the damage seems to have been caused by landslides following the event (see Dave's landslide post).

In October 2007, Japan launched its Earthquake Early Warning system, meant to give the general population advance warning of the arrival of strong shaking. The system works by picking up the fast-arriving but non-destructive P-waves, producing an estimation of the earthquake location and magnitude, and sending out a warning to the region likely to be affected by significant shaking due to S- and surface waves.

How well did the system work for the June 13 earthquake? The following information comes from a NatureNews piece that appeared on June 16th.

The early warning system signalled a powerful quake 3.5 seconds after detecting the p-waves, but at places such as Oshu within 30 kilometres of the epicentre, the s-waves had already arrived. Residents of Kurihara, one of the cities hardest hit, received only 0.3 seconds of warning. Farther away, at a distance of 50 kilometres, the warnings were issued 5 seconds before the violent shaking; residents at 80 kilometres' distance were given 15 seconds. Those relying on television, radio and mobile-phone systems to relay the message would have had to have waited an extra second longer than those with an independent terminal that can receive the broadcast warnings directly.

The NatureNews article sees the Early Warning performance as a failure, saying the "controversial" system was "beaten" by the earthquake. I would not be so negative. It will always be difficult if not impossible to give adequate warning to the area immediately surrounding the epicenter for a shallow event, as the S-waves follow the P-waves to closely for even the fastest warning system to act (and I believe 3.5 seconds from first P-wave arrival to warning is not bad at all in terms of speed). This point is indeed conceded towards the end of the piece, but by then the damage is done.

I wonder if Nature has a beef with EEW (Earthquake Early Warning)? The three news articles published on the subject since the system was launched are all negative. From a purely scientific and technical point of view, I would say the system functioned properly, within its inherent limitations. These limitations are pointed out explicitly in the documentation given to the general public. I quoted the JMA explanation of these limitations in my first EEW post. Here is a brief summary:

1. Timing: because of the time required to process the seismic data and generate a warning, areas close to the focus of an earthquake may not receive the warning before the strong shaking occurs.
2. False alarms: these can occur when using data from only one seismograph.
3. Magnitude: magnitude estimates are notoriously inaccurate, especially before all the waves generated from the earthquake have arrived.
4. Seismic intensity: intensity estimates are limited in accuracy due both to the limitations in magnitude estimation and residual uncertainties in the local amplification due to land structure.
   

The acceptance / confidence problems currently plaguing the Japanese EEW system are in my opinion less due to failures of the system itself than to the inherent difficulties that occur any time one deals with warnings to the general public. Even though the limitations of an automated warning system may be explained clearly, the public is rarely generous of spirit when it comes to fearful occurrences such as earthquakes. Tsunami warning systems such as that run by the PTWC are confronted with similar difficulties, especially close to the focus of tsunamigenic earthquakes.

How should one deal with the general public? What is the actual tolerance of false alarms? What is the tolerance of underestimations of damage? I do not believe there is a cut-and dried answer to any of these questions. Moreover, the answer may change with time and will probably depend on the performance history of the system. We are still in the early days of Earthquake Early Warning. Maybe a few years from now we shall have a greater handle on how to deal with these issues...

Antarctic craziness: marathons at 80S

As I say in my blog description (orange box at the top of the sidebar):

You'd be surprised how many crazy souls are out there...

You don't get much crazier than this: running a marathon and/or a 100km trail at 80S. These marathon runs are aimed exclusively at adventure runners who can shell out the $15k registration price to participate in the only foot-races on the Antarctic continent. They can choose between a 26-mile marathon or an 100km (62 mile) ultra race over snow and ice, at an altitude of 3000ft, with an average temperature (including windchill) of -20°C, and the possibility of strong Katabatic winds. Not for the feint of heart (and definitely not for me!).

The 3rd edition of these races was held on December 20th. The marathon was won by Marc de Keyser from Belgium, in a record breaking time (4h, 42min, 32sec). Only two out of the ten runners who had entered for the 100km ultra race completed the run. Cristian Schiester from Austria took the title in just under 20 hours, while Susan Holliday from Great Britain became the first woman to complete the distance in Antarctica in just over 22 hours. You can find all the results and more information on the races on the Antarctic Ice Marathon website.

Antarctica Seabed - the saga continues

After the recent hullabaloo about Britain's submission to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf regarding the seabed attached to its frozen territorial claim in Antarctica, Argentina and Chile have joined the throng (see articles here and here).

It is not surprising that all countries with frozen territorial claims in Antarctica are soliciting the UN-CLCS. The fact that there is a deadline imposed on submissions to the commission leads naturally to a concentration of submissions close to this deadline. In my previous post, I stated that this deadline was fixed at 10 years after the country concerned had signed the Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 4 of Annexe II of the convention). The articles cited above, however, state that this deadline is in 2009. Why the discrepancy? Quite simply I got my deadlines mixed up (mea culpa!). It seems that the 10-year time-limit had raised many issues with countries unable, often for legitimate reasons, to file their submissions in time, and was therefore modified by the following decision:

The decision provides that, for a State for which the Convention entered into force before 13 May 1999, the date of commencement of the 10-year time period for making submissions to the Commission is 13 May 1999.

You can read more about the details and history of this decision on this CLCS page.

Given the 2009 deadline, both Chile and Argentina are well within their rights in submitting their own claims to the Antarctic seabed. None of these claims should actively be considered by the CLCS while the Antarctic Treaty is in force. Should the time come, any decision on the British, Chilean and Argentinian claims will most probably be dependent on resolution of their overlapping claims to the Antarctic continent itself.



-----
Keep up to date with the latest developments at http://sismordia.blogspot.com

Who owns Antarctica?

Update: since writing this post, Chile and Argentina have reacted to the British submission to th UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf by announcing they will file their own claims. Read all about it in this follow-up post.

Who owns Antarctica?

This question is one of many Antarctica-related questions my colleagues and I asked visitors to our International Polar Year stand at the recent Science Fair (Fete de la Science) held last weekend. It was of course a trick question, because no-one owns Antarctica. All territorial claims were frozen by the Antarctic Treaty, which guaranteed the continued use of Antarctica exclusively for peaceful ventures, and the freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation in Antarctica.

So imagine my surprise the following Wednesday, when this article from the Guardian newspaper appeared: Britain to claim more than 1m sq km of Antarctica - Move would extend UK oil, gas and mineral rights.

Here are some quotes from the article (ellipses are my own):

The United Kingdom is planning to claim sovereign rights over a vast area of the remote seabed off Antarctica [...] The submission to the United Nations covers more than 1m sq km (386,000 sq miles) of seabed, and is likely to signal a quickening of the race for territory around the south pole [...]

The claim would be in defiance of the spirit of the 1959 Antarctic treaty, to which the UK is a signatory. It specifically states that no new claims shall be asserted on the continent [...]

The Foreign Office [...] has told the Guardian that data is being gathered and processed for a submission to the UN which could extend British oil, gas and mineral exploitation rights up to 350 miles offshore into the Southern Ocean. [...]

The Antarctic submission reflects the UK's efforts to secure resources for the future as oil and natural gas reserves dwindle over the coming decades[...]

The article raised two troubling questions in my mind: how is such a claim compatible with the Antarctic Treaty System? and is the Antarctic seabed legally exploitable? Before getting onto my high horse about this claim, I needed to look more closely into the Antarctic Treaty itself. The best source of information I could find was the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, where I re-discovered most of the facts described below.

The Antarctic Treaty deals with the issue of sovereignty in Article IV, essentially maintaining the status quo of 1959 with regards to territorial claims and their recognition :

No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for assenting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim [...] shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

Note that the Treaty does not require the countries with territorial claims made before signature of the Treaty to renounce them. The British, Australian, New-Zealand, French, Argentinian, Chilean and Norwegian claims were therefore frozen in 1959. [Note that to further complicate matters, the Argentinian and Chilean claims overlap with the British claim].

If no new territorial claims can be made or extended, what is this possible submission to the UN by the United Kingdom about? The submission would be to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS). This commission judges claims on the limits of a country's continental shelf, which in turn affect the definition of its territorial waters. According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea (CLOS), claims to the CLCS should be submitted within 10 years of its entry into force for that country. As the UK signed the convention in 1997, should it wish to submit any claims, it should do so before the end of 2007. Hence the submission described by the Guardian article.

Something that was not mentioned in the Guardian article, but was brought to my attention by the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat site, was that Australia and New Zealand both submitted similar claims regarding the continental shelf adjacent to the regions of Antarctica over which they held territorial claims before 1959. The Australian claim was submitted in 2004 (Australia signed the Law of the Sea in 1994), while the New Zealand claim was submitted in 2006 (New Zealand signed the Law of the Sea in 1996).

In order to allay any concerns about the Antarctic Treaty, Australia requested that the CLCS not take any action for the time being on its Antarctic claim. The Guardian suggests the UK should make a similar request:

Ministers will have to decide under what terms the application to the UN would be made. One possibility might be for the UK government to lodge a legal claim with the UN's commission on the limits of the continental shelf and effectively park it for consideration at a future date.

As for any remaining environmental concern about future drilling off the coastal waters of Antarctica, the Protocol on Environmental Protection, an addition to the Antarctic Treaty, specifically prohibits all activities relating to the Antarctic mineral resources except for scientific research (Article 7).


What are my conclusions after all this? Firstly, that as far as I can see the UK will be doing nothing illegal or morally wrong by submitting its claim to the UN, though it will most probably have to find an agreement with Argentina and Chile given their overlapping claims to Antarctica. Secondly, and more importantly, that at some time in the future, and preferably within the next 20 years, it will be necessary for the international community to put some order into its conventions and treaties, and to decide how it intends to balance national interests with environmental issues.


Update: since writing this post, the following posts/articles have come to my attention:

• FT.com, Oct 18th : UK turns up heat in battle for Antarctica
• Climateer Investing, Oct 19th : Britain to claim 1m sq km of Antarctica - here we go again

-----
Keep up to date with the latest developments at http://sismordia.blogspot.com

Japan - Pioneering Earthquake Early Warning

The Japanese Meteorological Agency has been testing an Earthquake Early Warning system for some time. Up until recently, the warnings were received only by certain agencies and infrastructures such train networks. As of October 1st, the JMA has started distributing these alerts to the public at large, via radio and TV.

The system provides estimates of the seismic intensities and expected arrival time of strongest motion. These estimations are based on fast determination of the location and magnitude of the earthquakes using data observed by seismometers near the epicenter.



Earthquake Early Warning reduces earthquake-related damage by giving time to act in preparation to the shaking, for example by slowing down trains, controlling elevators. Now that warnings are received by the public, they will enable people to protect themselves in the appropriate manner for the location they are in.

The decision to trigger an earthquake warning is taken automatically by the EEW system, based on the information it receives from the seismic stations. There is a trade-off inherent in all alert or warning procedures, between the promptness of an alert and its accuracy: simply put, it takes time to get enough information to make an informed decision, but an alert is only useful if given sufficiently in advance.

The JMA list the following inevitable limitations to the EEW system, which have to be taken into account by the users:

Timing
The window of time from the announcement of an Earthquake Early Warning until the arrival of the main tremors is very short, i.e. a matter of seconds (or between several seconds and a few tens of seconds). In areas that are close to the focus of the earthquake, the warning may not be transmitted before strong tremors hit.

False alarms
When using data from only one seismograph, false Earthquake Early Warnings may occur as a result of noise from accidents, lightning or device failure.

Magnitude estimation
There are limits to the accuracy of estimating magnitude, especially for large earthquakes. It is difficult to separate earthquakes and provide accurate warnings when multiple earthquakes occur almost simultaneously or in close proximity to each other.

Seismic intensity estimation
There are limits to the accuracy of estimating seismic intensity by statistical attenuation formula, as well as limits to the prediction of land surface amplification.

You can read more about the EEW system on the JMA webpage, where you can also find these two leaflets explaining how the system works, and how to react to a warning.


Call for comments: Are you living in Japan, or do you know people who are? Have you (or they) had to react to an Earthquake Early Warning yet? If so, please let me know how it worked, what went through your mind, what you did to prepare for the shaking, how you felt afterwards.

-----
Keep up to date with the latest developments at http://sismordia.blogspot.com

Another major earthquake hits Indonesia

It never rains but it pours... nowhere is this more true than in Indonesia right now. Here is the USGS ShakeMap for another major quake in the region:



The local tsunami warning for this quake issued by PTWC is available here.

-----
Keep up to date with the latest developments at http://sismordia.blogspot.com

Powerful earthquakes hit Indonesia

Indonesia was hit yesterday (Wednesday) by one great (M8.4) and one major (M7.9) earthquakes, followed by a number of strong to moderate aftershocks. News reports about the quakes can be found all over the web, but also here, here, here and here.

The various tsunami warning centers, including the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii, reacted immediately, sending out first preliminary warnings then tsunami reports. Mike Dunford wrote a nice post about these tsunami warnings here.

Here are the ShakeMaps (earthquake intensity maps) published by the USGS for these two earthquakes, followed by the most up-to-date tsunami bulletin by the PTWC for the larger of the two events (the PTWC has issued a warning also for the second event, available here):

TSUNAMI BULLETIN NUMBER 005
PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER/NOAA/NWS
ISSUED AT 1505Z 12 SEP 2007

THIS BULLETIN IS FOR ALL AREAS OF THE INDIAN OCEAN.

... FINAL INDIAN-OCEAN-WIDE TSUNAMI WATCH ...

THIS THE FINAL TSUNAMI WATCH FOR

INDONESIA / AUSTRALIA / INDIA / SRI LANKA / THAILAND / UNITED KINGDOM / MALDIVES / MYANMAR / MALAYSIA / BANGLADESH / MAURITIUS / REUNION / SEYCHELLES / MADAGASCAR / SOMALIA / OMAN / PAKISTAN / IRAN / YEMEN / COMORES / CROZET ISLANDS / MOZAMBIQUE / KENYA / TANZANIA / KERGUELEN ISLANDS / SOUTH AFRICA / SINGAPORE

THIS BULLETIN IS ISSUED AS ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. ONLY NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING THE OFFICIAL STATE OF ALERT IN THEIR AREA AND ANY ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN RESPONSE.

AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS

ORIGIN TIME - 1110Z 12 SEP 2007
COORDINATES - 4.5 SOUTH 101.3 EAST
LOCATION - SOUTHERN SUMATERA INDONESIA
MAGNITUDE - 8.2

MEASUREMENTS OR REPORTS OF TSUNAMI WAVE ACTIVITY

GAUGE LOCATION LAT LON TIME AMPL PER
------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------------- -----
SIBOLGA ID 1.7N 98.8E 1434Z 0.09M / 0.3FT 52MIN
PADANG ID 0.9S 100.4E 1348Z 0.98M / 3.2FT 34MIN
COCOS CC 12.1S 96.9E 1236Z 0.11M / 0.4FT 22MIN
DART 23401 8.9S 88.5E 1421Z 0.02M / 0.1FT 15MIN
LAT - LATITUDE (N-NORTH, S-SOUTH)
LON - LONGITUDE (E-EAST, W-WEST)
TIME - TIME OF THE MEASUREMENT (Z IS UTC IS GREENWICH TIME)
AMPL - TSUNAMI AMPLITUDE MEASURED RELATIVE TO NORMAL SEA LEVEL.
IT IS ...NOT... CREST-TO-TROUGH WAVE HEIGHT.
VALUES ARE GIVEN IN BOTH METERS(M) AND FEET(FT).
PER - PERIOD OF TIME IN MINUTES(MIN) FROM ONE WAVE TO THE NEXT.

EVALUATION

SEA LEVEL READINGS INDICATE A TSUNAMI WAS GENERATED. IT MAY HAVE BEEN DESTRUCTIVE ALONG COASTS NEAR THE EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER.

FOR THOSE AREAS - WHEN NO MAJOR WAVES HAVE OCCURRED FOR AT LEAST TWO HOURS AFTER THE ESTIMATED ARRIVAL TIME OR DAMAGING WAVES HAVE NOT OCCURRED FOR AT LEAST TWO HOURS THEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES CAN ASSUME THE THREAT IS PASSED. DANGER TO BOATS AND COASTAL STRUCTURES CAN CONTINUE FOR SEVERAL HOURS DUE TO RAPID CURRENTS. AS LOCAL CONDITIONS CAN CAUSE A WIDE VARIATION IN TSUNAMI WAVE ACTION THE ALL CLEAR DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

BASED ON AVAILABLE DATA THIS CENTER DOES NOT EXPECT MORE WIDESPREAD DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT. HOWEVER ... DUE TO ONLY LIMITED SEA LEVEL DATA FROM THE REGION IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THIS CENTER TO RAPIDLY NOR ACCURATELY EVALUATE THE STRENGTH OF A TSUNAMI IF ONE HAS BEEN GENERATED.

ESTIMATED INITIAL TSUNAMI WAVE ARRIVAL TIMES AT FORECAST POINTS WITHIN THE WARNING AND WATCH AREAS ARE GIVEN BELOW. ACTUAL ARRIVAL TIMES MAY DIFFER AND THE INITIAL WAVE MAY NOT BE THE LARGEST. A TSUNAMI IS A SERIES OF WAVES AND THE TIME BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE WAVES CAN BE FIVE MINUTES TO ONE HOUR.

LOCATION FORECAST POINT COORDINATES ARRIVAL TIME
-------------------------------- ------------ ------------
INDONESIA BENGKULU 3.9S 102.0E 1123Z 12 SEP
SIBERUT 1.5S 98.7E 1203Z 12 SEP
PADANG 0.9S 100.1E 1214Z 12 SEP
BANDAR LAMPUNG 5.7S 105.3E 1242Z 12 SEP
SIMEULUE 2.5N 96.0E 1243Z 12 SEP
CILACAP 7.8S 108.9E 1307Z 12 SEP
BANDA ACEH 5.5N 95.1E 1329Z 12 SEP
BALI 8.7S 115.3E 1345Z 12 SEP
KUPANG 10.0S 123.4E 1453Z 12 SEP
BELAWAN 3.8N 99.0E 1703Z 12 SEP
AUSTRALIA CHRISTMAS IS 10.4S 105.4E 1220Z 12 SEP
COCOS ISLAND 12.1S 96.7E 1234Z 12 SEP
NORTH WEST CAPE 21.5S 113.9E 1429Z 12 SEP
CAPE INSPIRATIO 25.9S 113.0E 1526Z 12 SEP
CAPE LEVEQUE 16.1S 122.6E 1542Z 12 SEP
PERTH 32.0S 115.3E 1545Z 12 SEP
AUGUSTA 34.3S 114.7E 1559Z 12 SEP
GERALDTOWN 28.6S 114.3E 1603Z 12 SEP
ESPERANCE 34.0S 121.8E 1726Z 12 SEP
KINGSTON SOUTH 37.0S 139.4E 1906Z 12 SEP
EUCLA MOTEL 31.8S 128.9E 1934Z 12 SEP
DARWIN 12.1S 130.7E 1948Z 12 SEP
HEARD ISLAND 54.0S 73.5E 1955Z 12 SEP
HOBART 43.3S 147.6E 2015Z 12 SEP
INDIA GREAT NICOBAR 7.1N 93.6E 1338Z 12 SEP
LITTLE ANDAMAN 10.7N 92.3E 1421Z 12 SEP
PORT BLAIR 12.0N 92.5E 1440Z 12 SEP
NORTH ANDAMAN 13.3N 92.6E 1453Z 12 SEP
CHENNAI 13.4N 80.4E 1540Z 12 SEP
KAKINADA 17.2N 82.7E 1604Z 12 SEP
TRIVANDRUM 8.3N 76.9E 1608Z 12 SEP
BALESHWAR 21.6N 87.3E 1701Z 12 SEP
MANGALORE 13.3N 74.4E 1732Z 12 SEP
BOMBAY 18.8N 72.6E 2005Z 12 SEP
GULF OF KUTCH 22.7N 68.9E 2019Z 12 SEP
SRI LANKA DONDRA HEAD 5.8N 80.5E 1447Z 12 SEP
TRINCOMALEE 8.7N 81.3E 1502Z 12 SEP
COLOMBO 6.9N 79.8E 1515Z 12 SEP
JAFFNA 9.9N 80.0E 1625Z 12 SEP
THAILAND PHUKET 8.0N 98.2E 1508Z 12 SEP
KO PHRA THONG 9.1N 98.2E 1554Z 12 SEP
KO TARUTAO 6.6N 99.6E 1626Z 12 SEP
UNITED KINGDOM DIEGO GARCIA 7.3S 72.4E 1526Z 12 SEP
MALDIVES GAN 0.6S 73.2E 1528Z 12 SEP
MALE 4.2N 73.6E 1544Z 12 SEP
MINICOV 8.3N 73.0E 1614Z 12 SEP
MYANMAR PYINKAYAING 15.8N 94.2E 1537Z 12 SEP
CHEDUBA ISLAND 18.9N 93.4E 1554Z 12 SEP
SITTWE 20.0N 92.9E 1629Z 12 SEP
MERGUI 12.8N 98.4E 1647Z 12 SEP
YANGON 16.2N 96.5E 1713Z 12 SEP
MALAYSIA GEORGETOWN 5.4N 100.1E 1704Z 12 SEP
PORT DICKSON 2.5N 101.7E 2048Z 12 SEP
BANGLADESH CHITTAGONG 22.5N 91.2E 1801Z 12 SEP
MAURITIUS PORT LOUIS 20.0S 57.3E 1803Z 12 SEP
REUNION ST DENIS 20.8S 55.2E 1820Z 12 SEP
SEYCHELLES VICTORIA 4.5S 55.6E 1847Z 12 SEP
MADAGASCAR TOAMASINA 17.8S 49.8E 1900Z 12 SEP
ANTSIRANANA 12.1S 49.5E 1905Z 12 SEP
MANAKARA 22.2S 48.2E 1919Z 12 SEP
CAP STE MARIE 25.8S 45.2E 2009Z 12 SEP
MAHAJANGA 15.4S 46.2E 2009Z 12 SEP
TOLIARA 23.4S 43.6E 2034Z 12 SEP
SOMALIA HILALAYA 6.5N 49.2E 1922Z 12 SEP
CAPE GUARO 11.9N 51.4E 1933Z 12 SEP
MOGADISHU 2.0N 45.5E 1938Z 12 SEP
KAAMBOONI 1.5S 41.9E 2004Z 12 SEP
OMAN SALALAH 17.0N 54.2E 1930Z 12 SEP
DUQM 19.7N 57.8E 1939Z 12 SEP
MUSCAT 23.9N 58.6E 1943Z 12 SEP
PAKISTAN GWADAR 25.1N 62.4E 1937Z 12 SEP
KARACHI 24.7N 66.9E 2031Z 12 SEP
IRAN GAVATER 25.0N 61.3E 1943Z 12 SEP
YEMEN AL MUKALLA 14.5N 49.2E 2003Z 12 SEP
ADEN 13.0N 45.2E 2100Z 12 SEP
COMORES MORONI 11.6S 43.3E 2006Z 12 SEP
CROZET ISLANDS CROZET ISLANDS 46.4S 51.8E 2009Z 12 SEP
MOZAMBIQUE CABO DELGADO 10.7S 40.7E 2034Z 12 SEP
ANGOCHE 15.5S 40.8E 2044Z 12 SEP
QUELIMANE 18.0S 37.1E 2213Z 12 SEP
MAPUTO 25.9S 32.8E 2218Z 12 SEP
BEIRA 19.9S 35.1E 2246Z 12 SEP
KENYA MOMBASA 4.0S 39.7E 2039Z 12 SEP
TANZANIA LINDI 9.8S 39.9E 2039Z 12 SEP
DAR ES SALAAM 6.7S 39.4E 2047Z 12 SEP
KERGUELEN ISLAN PORT AUX FRANCA 49.0S 69.2E 2049Z 12 SEP
SOUTH AFRICA PRINCE EDWARD I 46.6S 37.6E 2146Z 12 SEP
DURBAN 29.8S 31.2E 2205Z 12 SEP
PORT ELIZABETH 33.9S 25.8E 2256Z 12 SEP
CAPE TOWN 34.1S 18.0E 2359Z 12 SEP
SINGAPORE SINGAPORE 1.2N 103.8E 0048Z 13 SEP

THE JAPAN METEOROLOGICAL AGENCY MAY ISSUE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THIS EVENT. IN THE CASE OF CONFLICTING INFORMATION...THE MORE CONSERVATIVE INFORMATION SHOULD BE USED FOR SAFETY.

-----
Keep up to date with the latest developments at http://sismordia.blogspot.com

Peer review icon contest

Ten days ago I wrote about an initiative to standardize and aggregate posting on peer reviewed research in all subjects. This initiative has now developed into a fledgling organization called BPR3 - Bloggers for Peer Review Research Reporting.

There has been a lot of activity over at BPR3, discussing working definitions of peer-review, the requirements for an icon to specifically indicate that a post is about peer-reviewed research, the practicalities of aggregation of such posts.

Now for the latest: the BPR3 Icon Contest :

Bloggers for Peer-Reviewed Research Reporting is pleased to announce its contest for designing the icon that will represent the organization and its mission on academic blogs world-wide.

Contest participants will design a universal icon that everyone can use on their blog posts whenever the post is a serious commentary about a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, and not just a link to a press release or media commentary.

Eventually these posts will be collected on BPR3.org, so anyone can find the most thoughtful blog posts on the internet, discussing serious research, not just media hype.

The deadline for submissions is September 10th. All submissions are welcome, but please read the icon specifications and contest rules on this post before rushing off to your design table.

Erratum

The radio interview with the Concordia crew will be held on Sunday August 12th at 9 am CET on Rai Radio2, not on Saturday August 11th as previously announced.
-----
Keep up to date with the latest developments at http://sismordia.blogspot.com

Concordia Interviews

If you'd like to hear more from the winter-over team at Concordia, here are some dates for your calendar:

Friday, August 10 : interview on France2 during the 8 pm edition of the news.

Saturday, August 11 : live interview with on Rai Radio 2 at 9 am CET. The program is called "Carpa Diem" (and not Carpe Diem for some reason), and the interview will be about the first dawn after 3 months of darkness.

-----
Keep up to date with the latest developments at http://sismordia.blogspot.com

Science News: Antarctic microbes revived

Researchers from Rutgers University in New Jersey, US have managed to extract and grow bacteria from ice which was between three and five metres beneath the surface of debris covered glaciers in Antarctica.

The bacteria recovered and grew very quickly, according to the report. Those found in younger ice (100 000 years old) were more numerous and doubled in size faster than those found in older ice (several million years old).

One of the age-related factors that influence the revival rate of frozen bacteria seems to be the length of exposure to cosmic radiation. This damaging radiation, naturally stronger at the poles, causes DNA degradation, which increases rapidly for bacteria older than approximately one million years.

The full story from the BBC news website is available here: Ancient microbes 'revived' in lab

-----
Keep up to date with the latest developments at http://sismordia.blogspot.com

IPY news : CASE-IPY is selected !!!

Our International Polar Year project has just been selected by the ANR (Agence National de la Recherche)!! In short, this means the CASE-IPY project has passed scientific scrutiny, and is deemed worth of funding. Phew....!!!!

We have been waiting a long time for this news (ever since the application deadline, which was March 1st - four months ago). My first reaction upon hearing the news this morning was elation: "We made it!". The second was: "Oh my God we are actually going to have to run this crazy experiment..." Still, even that thought is no way near enough to wipe the grin off my face.

Now for the dampener: although the project selection phase is now over, we still do not know what the funding decision itself will be. The ANR conditions funding of selected projects on the validation of each project's budget, on their financial analysis of our partners, and on the transmission of all necessary administrative and financial information by each of the partners.

In short: today's news means we should be funded, but we don't yet know by how much.



-----
Keep up to date with the latest developments at http://sismordia.blogspot.com

Blog by email now available

Remembering to come back here every few days to check up on the latest news may not be your kind of thing. You may want to be kept up to date without the hassle of navigating and clicking.

For users like you, I have added "Read this blog by email" capabilities to the Sismordia blog. You will be able to submit your email address, and receive the latest posts directly in your inbox.

Be the first to try out this new service !

Piercing the mysteries of Lake Vostok

The Russian scientific base Vostok lies almost directly above an immense sub-glacial lake, Lake Vostok. The lake, which is hidden under more than 3km of ice, is the size of Corsica.

Lake Vostok is as yet untouched. Scientific pressure to directly sample the lake's water is strong. However it is currently counterbalanced by concerns about contaminating the lake by external life-forms transported by the sampling equipment.

How long this balancing act will continue is unknown. Le Figaro published an article yesterday, Antarctique : la Russie veut percer les mystères du lac Vostok, on Russia's intention to pierce through to the lake next year.

The Russian plan involves extending the current Vostok ice-core drill shaft, which currently stops 90 m above the lake surface, by another 70 m, until it reaches 20 m above the water. The second step will be to continue drilling with a small diameter thermal probe which will reach the lake itself. Lake water will then rise up the drill hole, where it will freeze. The then frozen lake water will be extracted by drilling this new ice-core.

There may be other ways to sample frozen water from Lake Vostok. Researchers from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University believe that the surface of the lake naturally freezes onto the bottom of the ice-cap, and is dragged along with the ice as it descends slowly towards the Antarctic ocean.

The Columbia researchers suggest the entire volume of the lake is removed every 13,000 years. They have put together this very clear Lake Vostok water animation explaining their findings. The source of the replacement water remains a mystery, but it may have something to do with the interconnectedness of the sub-glacial Antarctic lakes.

IPY news : Global Outlook for Ice and Snow

The Global Outlook for Ice and Snow is an IPY initiative sponsored by the United Nations. It investigates the current trends in ice and snow, their links with climate change and their consequences, and has produced a peer reviewed report with contributions from over 70 scientists.

If you're interested in the current state of knowledge about ice and snow as we head into the International Polar Year, you should go visit their website. It is very well constructed and is simple to navigate and fascinating to read.

Wind power in Antarctica

Power is often a concern in Antarctica, where the costs of fuel transport scale with the difficulty of access.

Solar power can be used for low power consumption applications like stand-alone scientific experiments, but only when the sun is present, which is less than six months of the year.

Wind power is also an alternative, although the freezing temperatures present a considerable problem.

Antarctica New Zealand are in the very early stages of researching wind as an alternative power source, in order to lower their environmental footprint in Antarctica. They are currently evaluating if there is enough wind for a wind farm installation that would benefit both Scott Base and McMurdo. Read more about this initiative in this article by Sarah Bedford in the Southland Times.