Scripps Global Warming Study
The Times published articles (March 22-26) on a Scripps experiment to develop an acoustic monitoring system for determining the realities of global warming possibly associated with a clear buildup of greenhouse gasses.
The first article presaged a public hearing on the project that day in Washington. Unfortunately, there were many incorrect statements which subsequently led directly to a firestorm of protest in the national press. The article stated that the source was so loud that it could deafen whales; this is incorrect. The source power is 200 watts, and this level would only be encountered if the whale’s ear was right up against the source, which is 3,000 feet beneath the sea surface. Permanent damage occurs at about 60,000 watts. Near the surface the power is down by a factor of a million, comparable to loud speech. Only if a diver were to descend into the water directly above the source would the tone be apparent; because the transmission of sound from water to the atmosphere is so inefficient, someone in a boat wouldn’t be able to hear the source.
As sound propagates away from the source, the intensities continue to decrease and reach the ocean’s ambient noise level at a distance near 150 miles; the sound cannot be “heard†in New Zealand as reported in The Times. Why bother to transmit if the sound cannot be heard? A 200-watt light bulb on the surface of the moon could not be seen by humans on the Earth at night either. However, the light bulb could be observed by Southern California’s telescope at Palomar. The same is true of the acoustic signal. Acoustic arrays search for the narrow band signal and computers are further exploited to extract the coded signal. These sophisticated approaches were taken specifically to avoid the transmission of loud acoustic signals which might harm marine mammals.
Your articles state that 677,000 whales, dolphins and seals in the Pacific will be affected by this experiment. In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service has a policy of listing the entire Pacific population. It is highly unlikely all these marine mammals will swim by the sources. Even if they do, they will not be harmed; perhaps distracted if too close, but certainly not harmed.
That The Times would think that we would act with callous disregard for the environment and the living creatures in the sea is extraordinary. Your sensational reporting was picked up around the country and the fallout has done great damage.
JOHN A. ORCUTT, Director
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary
Physics, Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, La Jolla
Scientists reportedly are willing to chance deafening marine animals in order to monitor global warming via ocean temperature measurements. But what government agency is funding this experiment? The National Weather Service? The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration? The Environmental Protection Agency? Nope, it’s the Defense Department!
Can anyone explain to me why the Defense Department is more interested in global warming than any of the more environmentally focused agencies of our federal government? Especially when budget cuts are forcing the Pentagon to eliminate its favorite toys, exotic weapons systems.
Recognizing this public-relations maneuver as a cover-up for military testing at least explains why the experiment must take place off two of the most remote and pristine coasts in the United States (Big Sur and Kauai) instead of heavily populated and more convenient locations like Los Angeles and Oahu.
GREGORY P. SHANK
Irvine
If Scripps officials had speakers placed in their environment and broadcast every four hours for 20 minutes until 2004, I wonder how they would behave?
TIM FROSS
Arroyo Grande
